Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:12, 15 August 2011

NIFLA article

I've been cleaning up the NIFLA article, removing the sillytags, mostly. If you have a minute, can you review it for NPOV? Some cites are needed; we can't rely on the NIFLA website too much for references. Oh, and glad you got time off for good behavior! --Kenatipo 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you, sir. In many ways I agree with you and Roscelese that while we have plenty of legit info on them but still, it ought have a more diverse pallet of sources. I'm inclined to take them at their word on the education stuff as they are a accredited learning destination (by professional organizations, and by the government) so there would be very real consequences if they were less than honest on that front. Outside of that, I'll pick around for some more, and better sources. - Haymaker (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

NO WAY

You mean to tell me they were Benjiboi!?! Lionel (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably saw this, but wanted to make sure: Lionel (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Pareen's opinion of Live Action's tactic matter no more ....

....or less than Live Action's opinion of Planned Parenthood I suppose. Actually, this was covered also by NPRs on the media - basically the same perspective if less pointed. Have a listen . The transcript will be available on Monday. I'll work something later on.Mattnad (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

We're both over 3RR on Planned Parenthood. I'm going to self revert my last one and I suggest you do the same. _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm over 3rr. If you've got diffs I will. - Haymaker (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one as is . This is also a revert, although quite a while back (you aren't going to make me hunt for the last time that was added are you?). This was also something I removed from the article quite a while back, . I guess you're over 3RR already, maybe I am too. ick. _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask. Also on the Alex Pareene by-line. - Haymaker (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look back far enough, you will see that the Kansas AG was listed as "pro-choice" before I removed it quite a while back. I'm not going to go back that far, I'm pretty sure someone added Alex Pareene as well but I'm not going to go through the last 100 or so edits to find it. _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't, you can't expect me to revert myself. I'd also like to see the diff on the pro-choice business. If its been a couple of days I'm disinclined to count it. - Haymaker (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Less than 2%

The source says: "...less than 2 percent of Planned Parenthood patient visits involve abortions..." so this edit is incorrect. Furthermore, you did not provide a rationale for the second portion of your edit. _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, everyone else is saying 3 and I added a source for the second clause. Edit summaries are just meant to be brief summaries, not tomes. - Haymaker (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

IIRC 3RR

I thought I read that even 3 reverts in a 24 hour period could violate 3RR because it violates the spirit of the rule. No one is "entitled" to 3 reverts in 24 hours, especially someone coming off a 48 hour block for edit warring. The purpose of the 3RR rule is to prevent edit warring and disruption, no? Just one non-wikilawyer's opinion. --Kenatipo 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Kansas

Welcome to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Kansas. I think that I've seen your name on some city edits in the past. I've been editing a large number of cities in the middle of Kansas, but I have also been touching county seats of all the counties and other various cities in Kansas. Please WATCH as many cities in your favorite area of the state so we can fix the flyby vandalism as fast as possible. I'm currently watching over 1000 various articles, most of them cities in Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start loading up on them. - Haymaker (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A request for review

Hi Haymaker,

If you don't mind a long read, I would like some advice from you on this editor review. What I aim to get is some perspective on the relevant matter.

Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am honored by your request. I will try to chime in sometime this week. - Haymaker (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions on Abortion-related articles

Courcelles has instituted General Sanctions on all abortion related articles, including 1RR. Be careful! --Kenatipo 23:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre. Every editor is now subject to sanctions because of the incessant disruptive behaviour of a single editor. Well, he can't help himself--this will certainly result in a topic ban for him--only a matter of time--no self control! Lionel (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What did I tell you? Wow. That was fast. But only 24 hrs? How does he keep getting away with these slaps on the wrist???? I wonder if there's any chance of getting GS lifted when he finally gets topic banned? Lionel (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of MfD...

...if you'd like to speedy that version of "Traditional marriage movement" that you're keeping around as a security blanket, that would be appreciated, but if you have other things to do, that's fine too. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean by "security blanket"... - Haymaker (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"nothing else in that category has been disavowed by the rest of that category"

That's false, actually. I'm surprised you haven't heard of the SSPX. Please revert yourself. It is not your place to decide who is Catholic for Misplaced Pages's purposes, and the USCCB is not a neutral source. I hope that since you're now aware of your error, you'll save other people the trouble of reverting you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Haymaker/Traditional marriage movement

User:Haymaker/Traditional marriage movement, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Haymaker/Traditional marriage movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Haymaker/Traditional marriage movement during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Dude, stop stalking me, now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his edits are necessarily out of reason, although his fourth edit is should be challenged and the second edit should be sourced. Can't say much about the first and third edits since I don't know the context. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The substance of the edits is completely beside the point (though they are also poor edits in terms of substance). But I doubt it's coincidence that he came across these articles immediately after I had edited them and did nothing but revert me, which is a WP:STALK issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The boomerang potential here is epic. Contentious editors often have their edits monitored. Heck, even nice editors often do. - Haymaker (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think I've been stalking you, feel free to report me, like you do every other week without success. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Right back at you. - Haymaker (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:STALK has to involve disruptive elements and/or some obvious potential intent of personally opposing your edits (i.e. he didn't like your comment on his ANI and he decided to go after you in ANI's you are involved, etc). So far, I don't see any signs that User:Haymaker was doing either. As for his editorial interests, he has complete freedom of choosing which places where he can contribute to and nothing limits him from checking your contribution history and taking an interest in the pages you are involved in - Heck I do that myself a number of times as well to a number of editors. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*shrug* You're entitled to your opinion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am, but my opinion is that it is a waste of time to get into a dispute over nothing. A confrontational attitude that is not strategically controlled can lead to other editors filing various complaints about you (either in good faith or just out of spite). Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

CPC

If you don't like the term "ministries," please replace it with a term of your choosing (organizations? entities?) that reflects the consensus that "affiliated" is not enough. You have been trying for months to remove this information, and there is a profound lack of consensus in favor of your doing so. Your recent editing has been exceedingly tendentious and I sincerely advise you to stop, for your own good as well as the encyclopedia's. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that you removed content about the Montgomery County law. It used to be cited to this article - I think what happened is that someone removed it when there was an update in the Baltimore case, not realizing that it supported other statements. Would you like to add it back? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not and never have had consensus to pretend that CPCs' relation to Christianity is a mere "affiliation." If your desire to suppress the information that they are Christian organizations is that compelling, please use the other wording preferred by some of the users, "run by Christians" rather than "affiliated with a Christian organization." You have been trying for months to remove this information, and there is a profound lack of consensus in favor of your doing so. Your recent editing has been exceedingly tendentious and I sincerely advise you to stop, for your own good as well as the encyclopedia's.

There are also several problems with your change of layout:

1. Criticism ghettos are generally discouraged, I think (which is why we recently got rid of the "criticism" section!), and it's a NPOV issue to fill the "services" section only with favorable information and segregate the unfavorable into "controversy."
2. The legal action has generally not concerned CPCs' provision of false information, so it's just weird to stick the two together unless you are trying to section off things that might reflect badly on CPCs.

To avoid the appearance of a POV-motivated change (though who am I kidding, really), would you please restore the previous organization of the page, and the "activities" header (which encompasses advertising and religion) rather than "services" (which encompasses neither)? -- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus that "affiliated" is not enough. Regarding the re-org, NYY implemented it and Haymaker restored it. And in case you haven't noticed, the entire article is a criticism ghetto. Lionel (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to insist on creating this bizarre criticism ghetto, can you at least get off your seat and explain yourself on the talk page, where the user who first implemented the change now favors restoring the original layout? What an arrogant edit that was. So sure you're right that you don't even have to discuss. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Friend

Are they a friend of yours? Lionel (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Abortifacient

Your personal opinion that birth control is equivalent to abortion does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Please a) revert yourself and b) stop stalking me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, too late. Well, just stop stalking me then. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats not remotely what I said and you don't know anything of my personal opinions, please don't assume you do. - Haymaker (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abortifacient

Hello! You're getting this message because you are involved in a content dispute at Abortifacient. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian Sex Mafia

You added the copypaste tag to this article back in November. Can you remember whether there was a specific web site or similar that you thought it was copied from? I'm currently working on the backlog at Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections and this is one of the last remaining of that backlog. Despite some pretty thorough searches I've been unable to find a source and as such, because I believe it is suspect, I was thinking of adding {{cv-unsure}} to the talk page and removing the copypaste tag which is how these cases are normally dealt with. However I wanted to check with you first to make sure I hadn't missed something. Dpmuk (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you let me have some example web addresses? I may be being blind but I seem to recall I had dificulty finding anything obvious so I may be missing an entire page / site or something. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Roscelese (talk 23:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be re-inserting "abortionist" at The Silent Scream, after I had changed it to "abortion provider" for obvious reasons. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's all it was, then I think the warning is a bit excessive. Some editors like to call a spade a spade, and the term "abortionist" is often used in reliable sources. I'm not saying that word should or should not be used in the article in question, but using it does not necessarily amount to personal analysis or commentary, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it may be excusable as an accidental oversight the first time, but after it's been replaced with neutral wording, restoring it for any reason is inappropriate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want to give Haymaker a warning for edit-warring, then that would be more apt. But then you'd have to give yourself one too. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it's edit-warring. I warned for neutrality because it's a neutrality issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I showed you the references I added last time you baselessly accused me of stalking. I'm assuming you were just forgetting it, rather than deliberately saying something you knew to be false in the hope of getting me blocked, but now that I've reminded you, could you please redact your comment? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. That was indeed my fault and I will not contest it but roscelese made two reverts as well , . Why wasn't she given a block? - Haymaker (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

For ANI:

So here is how I see things; SOV's description of my actions are correct - I added a word, then re-added it, then I added a different word, then re-added it. In order for me to be able to re-add two different edit, both edits that I originally made had to be reverted. Those two reverts were made by Roscelese. I can see where my reverts were more ovbious (sorry about, the 1RR on that article slipped my mind) but Roscelese had to twice remove the material that I added in order for me to be able to re-add it twice. She probably doesn't deserve the same 48 hours that I got but she too broke the 1RR rule on same on the same article that I did. She deserves something.

I don't know what SOV's position on this issue is, as far as I can tell only blocking 1 editor was just an oversight but now that attention has been brought to said oversight it can be solved relatively easily. - Haymaker (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be apt to call it an oversight, except that oversights are usually acknowledged and/or corrected once they are brought to the attention of the person who makes them. And then there's this edit (which Sarek subsequently reverted).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Copied over, but it looks like it took me so long you could have done it yourself. Sorry I didn't catch it earlier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I started a thread at WP:ANI about an admin. You're not the subject of the thread, but you were involved. I guess you've pretty much been muzzled for the time being, but you deserve this notice as much as Roscelese.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-abortion

I saw that you were using the term "pro-abortion" on the NPOV board. I'm not aware of anyone that is "pro-abortion", so perhaps you could clarify your use of this term. It would be like saying someone is "pro-chemotherapy" or "pro-hysterectomy". Allowing for a woman to choose to have an abortion does not mean she promotes the procedure. In the same way, I very much doubt anyone is promoting the use of chemo or the joys of having a hysterectomy. But they certainly allow patients to choose to have this medical procedure. Is choosing to have a medical procedure the same as promoting or advocating for it? Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about and I don't think it makes a terrible lot of sense compare chemotherapy to an abortion. - Haymaker (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems quite easy to understand. Please stop referring to people as being pro-abortion, its misleading and opinionated. They might support allowing women the right to abortion if they need or want one but as Viriditas clearly says, no one is just pro abortion as it infers they want it above all else. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rob about that, because the standard at Misplaced Pages is to use the self-identification terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", even if it's true that people in every industry have an interest in selling what they provide.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In every article I am always careful to use the term "Pro-Choice". Viriditas is referring to discussion I called a congressman pro-abortion. I don't think the term pro-abortion infers that they want it above all else any more than the terms "pro-war" or "pro-gun" would. - Haymaker (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly less problematic on a discussion page as opposed to an article. But I'd avoid it, unless other editors insist on saying "anti-abortion". Just my 2 cents. You're right that some people are pro-abortion in cases where a woman has made that choice, but sticking to the self-identification terms seems like an acceptable thing that will keep things calmer, even at talk pages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In my defense, this is a congressman who thinks that no only should abortion be legal but also that the taxpayer should foot the bill and it was in that context that the comment was made but yes, you're probably right. - Haymaker (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Waxman has fought for accurate, comprehensive sex ed and access to effective contraception for most of his political career (often against disheartening obstacles). It would thus seem that he's taken a very active role in promoting approaches that reduce unwanted pregnancies. In that respect, he's done much more to reduce abortions than most of the people who insist on labeling him "pro-abortion". I suppose that's one of life's little ironies. MastCell  22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that you think that. - Haymaker (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jane Russell

Please discuss on the talk page, and remember that just because the article doesn't fall under BLP rules doesn't mean you can say whatever damn fool thing you want in it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an interview with the subject is in the neighborhood of a "damn fool thing". - Haymaker (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The source you provided is not an interview, but rather an anti-abortion advocacy website (not exactly a reliable source) that says there was an interview. And if there was an interview? Big deal, she was against abortion, it doesn't make her a "pro-life" activist. As I said on the talkpage, which you might do well to post on: We don't divide the entire population of the United States into Category:American pro-choice activists and Category:American pro-life activists based on their views - they have to be, y'know, activists. You need actual sources for this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand why you are so determined to minimize this woman's work. - Haymaker (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You've yet to prove that there was any work to be minimized. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for removing hatnote

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.

I have objected regarding the block here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Abortion related articles are on general sanctions, with 1RR restrictions. This means, just to be absolutely clear, you cannot make more than 1 revert in a 24 hour period. Haymaker made 2 reverts in a 24 hour 10 minute period, clearly gaming the system or what have you. Our edit warring policy, as described, is not a bold line where you are OK if you are on one side of it, and in violation if on the other side as The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.. It is a grey area, and this is a clear case where the user was continuing an edit war, and trying to be just outside of the 24 limit in order to get another revert in. Furthermore, this user was blocked under the exact same general sanctions 12 days ago (and a history of edit warring blocks), so I don't think ignorance of the rules or a "first time offense" defense should come into play here (though I think if the user apologizes and cites confusion about the rules, an unblock may be warranted). In regards to the others making reverts, both PhGustaf and Binksternet made 2 reverts in a 6 day period, well outside of a strict 1RR interpretation, while Haymaker made around 4 reverts in the same period. I guess you could argue that they were working together to game the system and avoid sanctions on themselves, while still continuing edit warring... I agree, they shouldn't have been reverting the same material over and over, and perhaps a better solution would have been just to lock the article, but I don't think anyone else really needs to be blocked, especially not 24+ hours after the fact. -Andrew c  01:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not objecting to this block, but rather to the one-sided nature of the recent blocking of this particular editor. The recent block 12 days ago ignored a clear 1RR violation by another editor, apparently because that 1RR violation was not as bad. And now we have this same exact editor blocked again for something that is edit-warring rather than a 1RR violation, while the other edit-warriors get off Scott free, even though they were the ones pushing material into this article without consensus. If the object is to selectively block and ban pro-life editors, then this seems like excellent administrative conduct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry this seems more complicated than meets the eye. I don't know the back history outside of reading the block log, so I don't know the details of the 12 day ago block. I just felt there was a justification for this current block, and no justification for any additional blocks (even if I may not have done the exact same thing, assuming I wasn't involved in the article from the get go). But it sounds like you have bigger concerns regarding the blocking admin, and I can't really comment to that, nor is this really the venue for such accusation. Perhaps ANI... (though I don't envy anyone taking a case their...) Sorry I can't be of further help.-Andrew c  02:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reason why further blocks may be inappropirate now is because time has conveniently elapsed since the material was edit-warred into the article without consensus. I'm not going to start an ANI thread about this, but it seems appropriate to mention it here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I can see the confusion, but this isn't particularly edit warring. A controversial change was batted back and forth, I brought it to the talk page and when I came back from work the next day I saw that a new consensus had emerged and that since no new comments had been made for more than 24 hours I implemented that consensus. It is worth noting that in the mean time the article has not been altered since the time I edited it and the consensus remains unchanged. I was blocked by the same editor 12 days ago when I accidentally crossed the bright blue line. I was in the wrong then, I did not object to the block and served my time without complaint but this time I do not think I am in the wrong. I see how the flurry of edits looks like edit warring but said blue line was not crossed, the letter and the spirit of the dispute resolution process were followed, a consensus was successfully arrived at on the talk page and has been implemented without further controversy. Still, to avoid any further confusion, if unblocked I promise to stay away from the page for the next 3 months. - Haymaker (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Crossing the "bright blue line" isn't the only way to edit war -- 4 reverts in 6 days of the same material when there's an 1RR restriction in place is not good. However, since consensus seems to have firmed up after your block, and you're not planning to edit it for a while, I'm unblocking you.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to hold you to the 3 months you offered above -- just stay away for a few days, and don't restart the edit war when you come back. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

02:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting

This is something that may be of interest to you. Lionel (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Secession

Your revert on the Secession in the United States page restores an erroneous citation made when my contribution was edited by Tom North Shoreman. It also, leaves an entry under Alien and Sedition Acts which has nothing to do with the Alien and Sedition Acts; maintains a quote out of context; and substitutes Tom North Shoreman's words for the actual quoted material previously provided. If you are reverting on his behalf, you might inform him of these errors. I am surprised that you so quickly reverted back to his erroneous edits without first checking them against his alleged source. {]) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"the only source given for cfc is its homepage"

This is incorrect. Have you looked at the article any time after October 2008? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for the statement "An organization called Catholics for Choice was founded in 1973 "to serve as a voice for Catholics" who believe individual women and men are not acting immorally when they choose to use birth control, and that women are not immoral for choosing to have an abortion." that I am not aware of? - Haymaker (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AFA 3RR

FYI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

American Family Association is a hate group

And that's that. OrangeMarlin 16:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback II

--Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1RR

You've violated 1RR on Political positions of George W. Bush, with 2 reverts in half an hour. Would you like to revert yourself to avoid being blocked again? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a third opinion that says that the article falls under general sanctions, sure. But I'm not convinced that it does. - Haymaker (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please. Don't play coy; you've been in exactly this situation before, where an admin determined that information about abortion in an article otherwise unrelated to abortion fell under the sanctions. I'm sure you remember that bombshell actress. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh that Jane Russell character, I remember her. Forgive me, could you point me to where it was determined that her biography fell under 1rr? - Haymaker (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Haymaker (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How well this yielding rescues thee from shame! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Redux

Remember what I said about not stalking me? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in

Remember this? Guess who the nom really is... user:Hail of violence Yikes Lionel (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Abortion

As a heads up this topic area is under a 1RR restriction per Misplaced Pages:GS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed interaction ban re User:Roscelese

Do you have in mind an admin who you think is both fair but is also familiar regarding your participation within WP, who might be willing to help administer the voluntary interaction ban. I have asked the same of Roscelese, since I feel that having a good admin who can assist a party in conducting the interaction ban is better than having a "panel of three" sitting in judgement - any discussions between the admins will then less likely leave the editors out of the loop. Once we have all the parties in place I can then circulate the proposed wording of the interaction ban - taken from one of the previous ones I have adminned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abby Johnson (activist)

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abby Johnson (activist). – Lionel 03:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

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) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have re-added the POV notice to Pro-life because of this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please don't leave deceptive edit summaries like this, this, this, or this again. Perhaps you're not deliberately trying to sneak in POV edits under the radar, but it certainly comes across that way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Ros, no edit to either of those pages in the last 3 months has not been scrutinized in full. There is little point in leaving any edit summary at all. I think I'll just try to liven things up with my future ones to those pages. - Haymaker (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not related to edit summaries, but I didn't feel like making a new heading - Do not try to game the system. Page protection does not exist so that you can keep your contentious edits in for longer. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself, I requested page protection and then went off to tend to real life business. I this was the only scenario that I envisioned that didn't end with both of s blocked. It was late at night on the east coast, there was a 2 and a half hour lag in between the time I requested protection and the time it was granted. I filed the request knowing that there was a very good chance that you would change the page to the wrong version before protection was enacted and I didn't care. - Haymaker (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. Hello, Haymaker. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed interaction restrictions between you and User:Roscelese

Please find below the proposed wording of the interaction ban between you and User:Roscelese. I am copying Roscelese and Courcelles for their comments, and would ask you for your nomination for an involved administrator (if you cannot think of any such person, I am willing to make a request at WP:AN for volunteers for you to choose from). While admitting my own tardiness, I should be grateful for your prompt observations so this can be put in place in short order.

++ Restrictions on interactions between Roscelese (talk · contribs), and Haymaker (talk · contribs) ++
Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Roscelese and Haymaker, as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Misplaced Pages, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 1 year - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
• A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and - (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

++

Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey less, thanks for getting back to us. My biggest concern is Ros will initiate changes to terminology across swaths of pages that only really her and I edit and that I won't be able to contest them. I'd like some sort of a clause that Ros will not alter terms on these articles and she can certainly ask the same of me. I'd also like to tone the initial 1 year installment down to 3 months. - Haymaker (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your initial concern is covered by the "editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party" wording, but if you think it can be tightened up or better emphasised then feel free to suggest another wording. As for the 1 year/3 months issue, I do not think a period that could be "waited out" would have the desired effect; what is needed is for the two of you to get used to not looking to each others edits to see what might be reverted/amended. 3 months is far too short a period for me, although I would defer to a consensus between you, Roscelese and Courcelles for a period shorter than a year. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Any movement on an admin you would like to nominate as the third "involved administrator"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have always had a soft spot in my heart for User:B. - Haymaker (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have thus made a request at their talkpage if they would consider acting in this matter. I have asked that they respond here, so again we wait. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 6 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 January 2, 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. 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Catholics for Choice discussion

Just as a clarification. I saw your comment on the personal attacks. Since the indents sometimes can be a little unclear, in your opinion was I making personal attack or was the other editor making them. I personally don't think anything that I said was an attack, but always like to get a third party opinion. Marauder40 (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It was very much the latter, the tone (and content) of the post before yours was whole inappropriate and my response got ECd by yours. Sorry if there was any confusion. - Haymaker (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.Marauder40 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

EWN report

...filed here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 3 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Replying publicly...

...because after the nine months you've spent harassing me, I have no desire to give you my e-mail address. I'm aware that it comes up in a Google search, and I have no way of scrubbing it off the internet, but posting a link and encouraging other users to view it is still a major WP:OUTING violation, just as the fact that defamatory information can be Googled does not exempt anyone from BLP. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping defined

At WP:AN/EW, you asked me, "Are you familiar with the definition of forum shopping?"

It's described in general this way: "Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads."

In the current context, I would put forward this hypothetical: Let's say, for the sake of discussion that a group of three to five editors, sharing a strong POV on a controversial topic, takes a dislike to an editor with an opposing POV. Let's also say, for the sake of discussion, that this other editor is a member of several minority groups that have often been harassed and bullied for many hundreds of years in Western civilization. Let's say that some members of this particular group of editors have histories of edit warring, sock puppeteering, outright lying, misrepresentation and Wikistalking in the the service of their cause. Let's say that at least one member of this group posts information that reveals their opponent's real life identity. Let's say that the other editor has pleaded for an interaction ban with at least one member of that group. Let's say that members of that little group post a series of complaints about their opponent at the administrator's noticeboard, the Wikiquette noticeboard and the edit war noticeboard. Let's say that uninvolved editors determine that their complaints are unjustified. Then I think that reasonable editors would be correct in concluding that this entire pattern of conduct is "forum shopping", if not a whole lot worse.

This is my request for you to leave Roscelese alone. Please do so. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I stopped taking you seriously at "this other editor is a member of several minority groups that have often been harassed and bullied for many hundreds of years in Western civilization". Roscelese is not innocent. And stop with the conspiracy theories about an anti-Roscelese conspiracy. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, why is a non-admin telling someone to leave another alone? NYyankees51 (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Any editor can make such a request of another editor, and I stand by my request. I have no power to "tell" you guys anything, but I can ask you to behave decently. Whether you do so or not is your choice.

I have no theories - I just see your conduct, which speaks for itself.

In addition, I never said that Roscelese is 100% blameless in this matter. When she's been blocked, I did not object. I just recommend that the best course of action is for you to de-escalate and disengage. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As you said, it is a two way street, my friend. I would love nothing more than to walk away, God knows this takes up a fair bit of time but Ros is here for a reason and a host of people are unwilling to yield to it. I'm still holding out hope for a i-ban on my end. - Haymaker (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)