User talk:Pro-Lick: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:36, 18 March 2006

Important Wikipedian References

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

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 Wikipedia: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^(talk) 04:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia.

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)[reply]

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^(talk) 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Warning

Regarding this edit:

Please see Wikipedia'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^(talk) 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Wikipedia. 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^(talk) 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Vandalism, where you'll see that we define that word very narrowly here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add sub-cateogries within posts made by another editor

You keep adding subcatogories to my comments here: [1] What you are doing is vandalism (at least I consider it to be). They are my comments. Altering another's comments repeatedly against their expressed will is simply wrong. Leave them alone. Goodandevil 18:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:34, 18 March 2006 edit Goodandevil (talk \| contribs) 1,270 edits m →Warning ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:36, 18 March 2006 edit undo Goodandevil (talk \| contribs) 1,270 edits →Don't add sub-cateogries within posts made by another editor Next edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:

	==Don't add sub-cateogries within posts made by another editor==		==Don't add sub-cateogries within posts made by another editor==
	You keep adding subcatogories to my comments here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#Interesting_article_on_abortion.2C_from_WebMD] What you are doing is vandalism. They are my comments. Leave them alone. [[User:Goodandevil\|Goodandevil]] 18:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)		You keep adding subcatogories to my comments here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#Interesting_article_on_abortion.2C_from_WebMD] What you are doing is vandalism (at least I consider it to be). They are my comments. Altering another's comments repeatedly against their expressed will is simply wrong. Leave them alone. [[User:Goodandevil\|Goodandevil]] 18:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)