Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:35, 23 March 2006

Welcome to my talk page. Please place your comments in the appropriate section, or add a section lacking an obvious section. Thank you, and enjoy your talk.--The Management ( aka--Pro-Lick 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) )

Important Wikipedian References

Hello, Pro-Lick, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -GTBacchus 04:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Anti-Abortionists' Threats

Enjoy the do-it-our-way or we'll burn, bomb, and shoot you logic.

Regarding your edits to Abortion

Pro, the particular sentence you are objecting to has been accepted by consensus. At this point, attempting to edit the sentence can only be seen as an attempt to overturn the NPoV consensus. Refusal to abide by consensus canhave serious consequences, up to and including being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

Please re-read the discussion on the talk page, linked above, If you feel you have additional information or new arguments, please feel free to make them--but please do NOT simply ignore the consensus that has already been established. Justin Eiler 03:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing comments

Apparently, I posted a comment in an area that was reserved for citations. I didn't realize that until after you removed it, because I'm not used to that sort of thing. Somehow I read right through the words "Not for opinions" without it registering that you were declaring that section a comment-free zone.

I thought you should know. I'm putting my comments back now, in a comments subsection. If you've got a better idea, refactor away, my friend. -GTBacchus 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your main issue was corrected in the definitions quote, so there was no further need for the comment. You obviously can go into the history and grab your comment and repost it elsewhere if you feal something else needed a comment. If you want to add a separate comment section, that's fine. I marked the source section clearly and will keep it as such.--Pro-Lick 03:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Warnings (see above for threats)

Regarding this edit:

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, GTBacchus 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I stated loving and trolling are not mutually exclusive. Nothing more. That was focussed on the content and, if it attacks anyone personally, that is incidental.

You also made a snide comment in your edit summary - you are not as clever as you think. Good

I guess I appreciate the irony on some level - to point out someone's snide remark, and couch it within a snide remark of one's own. None of us is clever enough to write an encyclopedia alone, so we have to work together. -GTBacchus 07:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick, I hope you don't think I'm harassing you, or out to get you or something. I like that you seem smart and passionate, and I welcome your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I suspect we agree politically, although I consider that irrelevant here. Please consider that your editing style is rubbing several editors the wrong way, and whether that's really how you want to interact with this project.

You could argue semantics, if you want to, and explain why your snide remark wasn't technically a personal attack, but only a snide remark... or you could refrain from snide remarks because they're in the same spirit as personal attacks: derogatory, unproductive, and calculated to malign another contributor. Please, let's all respect each other very much. I respect your contibutions, comments, efforts, and obvious passion for improving the article, as well as GoodandEvil's. Let's all be cool with each other. -GTBacchus 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - FYI - please do not refer to another editor's contibutions as vandalism, no matter how wrong or misguided they are, and not matter how much you disagree with them. GoodandEvil is doing what he sees is best for the article, and that is never vandalism. Please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, where you'll see that we define that word very narrowly here. -GTBacchus 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder on vandalism. I was picking up its use from certain other users that used it outside the specific meaning it has here.--Pro-Lick 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

AnnH (aka Musical Linguist) Confession

Hi, Pro-Lick. I just want to make sure that you're fully aware of the three-revert rule, which says that you may not perform more than three reverts on any page in any twenty-four hour period. If you violate that rule, you may be blocked for twenty-four hours. I noticed that you broke the rule recently, but I don't normally report people, unless they keep on doing it after being warned, and I particularly don't like reporting newcomers. AnnH ♫ 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I started my last edit to you (which you seem to have partly deleted) a few hours ago, by clicking the + at the top of the page to open a new section. I wrote some of it, and then went away and kept the computer running. When I came back, I made some other edits (I had the browser open in two windows) and then finished the one on this page. I see now that you were blocked a few hours ago, which I did not know when I pressed "Save page". However, apart from "you may be blocked", I don't think the message would have been any different. I'll also add that people who have a record of edit warring can actually get blocked even if they stay within the limit. If they keep on making exactly three reverts a day, and making the fourth one just outside of the twenty-four-hour period so that an administrator thinks they're gaming the system, they can be blocked. Also, they can get longer than 24 hours for subsequent offences. Anyway, I rarely report for 3RR, and even more rarely block for it, but I just thought you should be made fully aware of what can happen. And please remember, three reverts per day is not a right. AnnH ♫ 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Common' down and Block me

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. - RoyBoy 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Convenient to ask on the discussion page for sources after blocking me and failing to provide even 1 to support your POV. YOu can see the complete list compiled so far here on the talk page under Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS.--Pro-Lick 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I concede the block is really bad timing on my part; but to be straight forward you violated the 3RR last night. I didn't block because I thought sleeping on things would quiet things down, clearly it did not. Your list is well done and researched, however it is also selective. The issue here is abortion does result in the termination/death of the whatever is being aborted. That remains true regardless of the wording your sources choose to use. Does "death/termination" belong in the first sentence; maybe not; but it was debated a while back and that is what was decided. Your sources also do not change that. - RoyBoy 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase: "The issue here is spermicicde does result in the termination/death of the whatever is being spermied. That remains true regardless of the wording your sources choose to use." That's your opinion again. Still unsported, still unsourced. You can claim to have won a debate in a restaurant in the middle of Alabama, but it doesn't change what the experts agree on unless you have evidence from other known experts. Moreover, someone quoted (unsourced) that the rules say you can't use Wiki as a source. If that's true, then it is also true, if not more true, for using the results of a debate in a bar in a small town at some forgotten time in the past.--Pro-Lick 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your analogies are unprecise, just as with cheek cells, sperm are not independantly developing organisms; rather they are differentiated specialized cells that have very limited function and lifespan when seperated from the host. Your understanding of Wikipolicy is very poor but certainly improving. Regarding using Wiki as a source, that is in regards to articles and making self reference in articles; when it comes to discussing changes to articles previous points/decisions/consensus is absolutely pertinent. I'm not here to repeat debates over and over again; and I like most people don't like WikiLawyering; especially from new users. - RoyBoy 03:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And support the unsourced claims with a personal attack that I'm "WikiLawyering". Quite the impressive political campaign. See below regarding consensus vs. policy. Whether you like my analogies or not, you provide no sources for your claims and the vast majority of medical references do not agree with your definition, much less that of the consensus of your small group of editors.

LOL, personal attack, that's cute. It was a short hand way of observing you continually attempt to leverage your interpretation of policy, and your small group of sources, to get your way. Also I was trying to give you advice, and clarify that sort of behavior closes more doors than it opens. I may have a "small group of editors" I have gotten to know in my productive time here at Misplaced Pages, but most aren't interested/located at the abortion article. You aren't going to get your way because of your behavior and attitude. Anything else you want to accuse me (or others) of isn't terribly accurate nor fair.

Please recognize despite all the WikiPolicy indicating the contrary, controversial articles are a balancing act, and NPOV does not mean removing things we find objectionable. If that was the case a while back I would have went against "death" and put "incapable of surviving" instead; but that didn't happen, I second guessed the decision in my head and then moved on. As to sources, I'm skimming your list, Encarta among others use "death" and "die" in their definitions. Also since Encarta is an actual encyclopedia... I'd say that carries more weight at Misplaced Pages than medical texts. - RoyBoy 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks, combined with belittling a list of sources of experts and belittling policy. Until your claims are stated as policy, claim whatever you like. I'll only be looking at your actions.--Pro-Lick 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Pro-Lick, but RoyBoy's right here. Pointing out that you're WikiLawyering isn't a personal attack, it's a way of letting you know about a point of Misplaced Pages culture from those who've been here longer than you have. I've seen plenty of people get permanently banned, and I've seen plenty of people become productive and respected editors. I'll let you guess which category the Wikilawyer types tend to fall into. Your fate at Misplaced Pages in entirely in your hands. Here's a hint - people who go a long way at Misplaced Pages tend not to get anywhere near the 3RR, because they follow the spirit of the rule, and then the letter isn't a problem. Here's some good reading, about some ideals that some of us here try to follow. They're not rules - they're an overall attitude that will take you much further than any rule ever could:

• Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary
• Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club
• Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons

I'd like for you to stick around. Please learn the ropes, rather than supposing you already know them. When in Rome..., right? It took me years to get the hang of this place. There are "rules" here that aren't written in obvious places, and about which the community is kind of ruthless when provoked. Observe for a while, and see how much you learn.

Oh, one more thing - proving that the "majority" or even the "vast majority" or reliable sources says one thing doesn't mean that's what we say. If there are reliable sources disagreeing, then we say that reliable sources disagree, and we explain the disagreement. Majority rules is not in effect here. We can indicate which view is in the majority, but we do not shut out the minority. -GTBacchus 20:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, it's not a personal attack because they do it all the time at Columbine? I'm not convinced. Nor am I convinced by majority doesn't rule here after having RoyBoy and others push consensus over and over again. Seems more like a double standard to keep it the way you want it.--Pro-Lick 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And maybe someone would like to explain why the 3RR block has gone beyond the 24 hour limit.--Pro-Lick 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh. The unblock issue seems to have resolved itself anyway, right? I'll have a look and see if there are any lingering autoblocks I can turn off, just in case. As to your other comments... I don't think I'm such a dense guy, but I actually don't know what you mean about "Columbine"? Maybe you can explain what you're getting at there, or not, if you prefer. I don't know what you're saying. As for the idea that there's a double standard to "keep it the way I want it", I'm curious just how you think I want the abortion page. I would really love to read your attempt at reading my mind.--GTBacchus 04:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The block was lifted about 5 hours after the limit. I don't know why. What I do know is that is fact. Regarding your mind, I don't have to read it. I can see how you voted in the straw poll and I can see the changes you make. As I wrote, I read according to your own actions. As to Columbine....--Pro-Lick 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what Columbine High School is and what happened there. You seem to be making some comparison between two kids flipping out and shooting up their school, and... something that's happening here? I really, really don't understand; I must be very, very dense. Apparently, you'd rather allude more than explain what you mean. Huh. I'm sorry for being so stupid; it must be very boring to explain yourself for the benefit of us dummies.-GTBacchus 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies. Substitute any allusion to a small group of people using peer pressure as their primary decisions making tool.--Pro-Lick 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin Discussions

-- You have a 3RR unblock, why do you want to be unblocked at this point in time -- Tawker 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For 1 thing, the 3RR block is supposed to be over by now. It's past 24 hours.--Pro-Lick 00:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

2006-03-18 16:34:10 RoyBoy blocked "Pro-Lick (contribs)" with an expiry time of (3RR on Abortion intro) - LOG--Pro-Lick 00:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You already got unblocked! --Rory096 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you try to edit as an anon, it might be an autoblock -- Tawker 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not get unblocked or edit as an anon. Still getting this: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by RoyBoy with the reason "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Pro-Lick". The reason given for Pro-Lick's block is: "3RR on Abortion intro".

Ok, we'd need to know the autoblock number or your IP address before we could do anything -- Tawker 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Emailing to you.--Pro-Lick 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to talk to User:Curps about the IP unblock, apparently he just blocked the IP so its best to discuss with him -- Tawker 08:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Policy

Linked to and a few choice phrases quoted for your convenience:

• "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not concerning advocacy and propaganda."
• "With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities."
• "Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Misplaced Pages is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."
• "This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing."

Abortion comic strip poll

Hi Pro-Lick - I would suggest removing the comic strip poll from Talk:Abortion. The comics do nothing but further polarize the editors of the article, and show a lack of respect for opposing views. They do not have anything to do with any specific debates, in that they do not contribute to seeking a better article; if anything, they drive editors further away from a willingness to work together. Their are plenty of political cartoons from the Pro-Life perspective that could be inserted, but what's the point? As I said, it accomplishes nothing on the page save to incense those of opposing POV's. I just wanted to let you know my take, off of the page - I also wanted to offer a piece of advice, in that inserting things like that makes it more difficult for editors to take you seriously. As your seriousness/cooperative spirit are gauged by other editors, so is your opinion taken seriously or not seriously by them in making decisions as to what goes on the article page. The more respectful, patient, and cooperative you can be, the more likely your suggestions will be integrated into the article. Cheerio, DonaNobisPacem 08:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the straw poll from Talk:Abortion. Internal polling only further polarizes the editors. In addition, no original research. The entire section needs to go. When that happens, the point of the cartoon poll will no longer be needed and I will be happy to have it removed. Thank you for helping to further communicate my point.--Pro-Lick 15:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick, before you reinvent too many wheels, check out m:Polls are evil. We've all read it, and you can link to it the way I did here (]). You might agree with a lot of what's written there. Every poll I participate in around here, I do with full knowledge of that document, including the final section (don't miss it!) wherein is explained how polls are to be used. In short - a Wiki-poll is not a vote. It's a discussion-generating device. It works as that, but the trick is, you have to use it as that. -GTBacchus 16:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for linking. I recommend re-reading the last part. Calling a poll a discussion generating device is an exercise in rebranding. The reality remains the same. If you want a discussion generating device, name it as such (or anything that does not imply a voting mechanism) and don't include a voting section, as was done in the straw poll. Until then, my previous statement applies and I am confused why anyone would support a poll or post it if they honestly, not just rhetorically, think polls are evil.--Pro-Lick 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't honestly think that "polls are evil". (I don't really use the concept "evil" in my world-view.) That phrase is just a soundbyte-sized label for the contents of the page.

You see, I arrived at Misplaced Pages a few years ago, and I noticed that there's something that goes on here, wherein people set up a straw poll, use it to generate discussion, repeat as often as necessary that it isn't a vote, and then use the results of the discussion to progress in whatever they're doing. It works, again and again and again. When you've seen a few dozen of them, you'll know what I mean.

Our deletion process, as another example, resembles a vote, but isn't one. Our process of selecting Administrators resembles a vote, but isn't one, quite. There are considerations that can, and do, trump "majority" or "supermajority" in all cases of Wiki-polling. In calling it a "straw poll" and treating it as a discussion-generating, information-gathering process, I'm just imitating what I've seen other Wikipedians do sucessfully. It's all part of picking up on cultural standards, and eventually being comfortable enough to apply them oneself. Maybe "straw polls" should be called something else, but they aren't. I'm going to keep using the standard Misplaced Pages terminology to mean what other Wikipedians will know I mean. Thanks for the suggestion that we change, though. Maybe someday.

You called my attention to the last section of m:Polls are evil, the one titled "Polls are misleading and encourage confusion". It was precisely because of that section that I thought it would be helpful to give you that link. I know that you're new here, and likely to think that our little Wiki-polls are votes, because that's what they look like at first. Now you know what's really going on. Everyone knows that "polls are evil", but we hold them anyway, and there's usually one person objecting to the poll and reminding everybody else that "polls are evil". We're all comfortable with that. Some courteous dissent is a good contant reminder that we must mind the discussion emerging from the poll, and not be blinded by a "vote count". Thanks for providing that dissent. I do hope you'll also be willing to weigh in on the decision being discussed, despite your quite just reservations about the format of the discussion. You may consider the group (or at least me) reminded that the straw poll isn't a vote, despite the resemblances. Thank you. -GTBacchus 23:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As "evil" is used in jest, but to make a point, my comic poll is used in jest and to make a point. In an environment where votes can't be faked, or at least are extrememly difficult to fake on a wide scale, I like polls and votes. I like democracy. Knowledge, however, is about reality, not what the majority want reported as reality. So, within the context of Wiki and any other Internet knowledge source, polls are, shall we say, in conflict with 2 important general aspects of an encylopedia.--Pro-Lick 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'll note I haven't objected to your comic poll. I read and understand DonaNobis' objections above, but I'm not bothered by humor. (DonaNobis, if you're reading, I mean no disrespect, and won't say you're wrong, merely that I disagree.) Maybe it makes a difference that I'm pro-choice and find SD's new law abhorrent, and worth mocking. I'd like to see some comics from the other side, and find out whether they push my buttons, or what. Maybe then I'd agree with DonaNobis.

As to your point regarding voting, I think it's valid and important. When it comes to content issues, I would agree with you entirely. I say (a) that this is a style issue, and not a content issue, and (b) that style issues are not the sort of thing you can source, and are precisely the sort of thing consensus is and should be used for here. I suspect you may disagree with both? I'll wait for an answer before replying; trying to curtail my tendency to long-windedness. -GTBacchus 00:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Words are content. They have meaning. How we put them on the page, whether we link them, put quotes on them, italicize them, put them in a floating box, or indent them is sTyLe.--Pro-Lick 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. It's good to find out just where we're not seeing eye to eye. Regarding the difference between content and style, you're oversimplifying. Examples of style that involve differences in language include: active vs passive voice, long sentences vs short sentences, dry/literal/direct statements vs flowery/evocative/indirect ones, writing for a non-specialist vs an expert audience, etc. I could go on and on. That the line between style and content is actually a grey area is actually a really interesting fact, on which a lot of good humor is based.

There are multiple ways to state any fact. Some involve different words, but all must relate the same fact. The sources are in broad agreement as to the fact of just what an abortion is. Some choose some words to express what an abortion is, others choose other words. The particular words chosen by each source make them different in style, but not in content. Using the word "death" or refraining from using it is different from actually asserting as a fact that an abortion does or does not involve death - there's actually no controversy on that point, just like there's no controversy as to whether the growth and cutting of hair on our heads involves death. It's an undisputed fact, that can be phrased in multiple ways. One may dodge the word death, or not, as dictated by one's style, just like one could use the word "death" or not in a biological description of the growth and loss of hair.

Am I making any sense? -GTBacchus 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is more to style as you point out, though I would say you're shifting the topic. You apparently see "death" as a style choice. I see it as conveying an incaccurate meaning that supports a biased point of view. At least at the moment, the overwhelming number of reputable, reliable sources concur. Until that changes, my "style" choice is that of the sources.--Pro-Lick 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What inaccurate meaning is conveyed by the word "death"? I'm not seeing that part. -GTBacchus 02:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a question for the sources. In my POV, stating that death results is eqivalent to stating on a page about menstruation that the period results in the egg's death or on an article on masturbation that it results in the sperms' death. If style is to be considered, style relative to how similar issues are described needs to be considered, too. Which brings us to miscarriage, which reputable, reliable sources use death to define even more rarely than aboriton, even though it is considered a sub-category of abortion.--Pro-Lick 03:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(Outdenting) If a definition fails to distinguish abortion from live delivery, it's no good. I don't know how to make that distinction without somehow expressing that one involves the fetus dying, and the other one doesn't.-GTBacchus(talk) 04:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1. That's your POV (i.e., no sources to support your opinion).
2. That's your knowledge gap ("dont't know").

The sources don't have that problem, and you have failed to provide sources to support your POV. Again. You're using living and dying in human terms, yet the fetus is not human yet. Sourced replies only.--Pro-Lick 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, I think the comics are more offensive to one side than the other - for a pro-lifer, if you consider the one being aborted as a person, with a soul (if you are a religious pro-lifer) and rights, then abortion = murder - so the humour becomes rather sickening. On the other hand - many pro-life cartoons show a doctor performing an abortion as murder, or those supporting abortion as supporting murder, which tends to offend as well. I get the comics were there to prove a point, in a humourous manner; and I certainly am not one to object to humour (the fact I refer to myself as an idiot in some of my edit corrections should indicate that ;) ). But on the other hand, abortion humour can easily get offensive when one does not respect the POV of the opposing side, and that's what I object to.....anyways....if no one objects, I'll put a few links to the "other side" comics here, and you can see what you think.....DonaNobisPacem 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add to it. I'm sure I'll laugh, just not with them.--Pro-Lick 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dona, I'd love to see them, too. -GTBacchus 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)