User talk:Pro-Lick

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]

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)[reply]

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. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda."
"With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."

3RR, and proper use of word "vandalism"

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.

Just a couple of things that you may not be clear on:

Some people violate that rule under the mistaken idea that if they are making different reverts, they don't count. In fact, it's the number of reverts you perform, whether or not it's the same revert. So if someone adds a sentence to the third paragraph and you delete it; someone else changes a word in the fifth paragraph and you change it back; someone moves a paragraph to a different place within the article, and you move it back; and then, finally, someone deletes a sentence in the last paragraph, and you put it back in — in such a case, you have made four reverts, since it's the act of reverting that counts.

Partial reverts also count. It doesn't make any difference that you may not have made the article identical to an earlier version. So if there's a dispute about the word "death" in the opening paragraph, and you remove "death" while also changing the second paragraph, then you later remove "death" while changing the format of the footnotes, etc., and another time remove "death" while leaving intact another part of someone's edit, they all count as reverts.

The exceptions to the three-revert rule are self reverts (you make an edit, and then change your mind, and undo it), and reverting of vandalism. However, it's important not to call something vandalism simply because you disagree with it. First of all, you can be blocked for breaking 3RR while undoing some very POV edits. Secondly, it's quite rude, isn't it? It's also inappropriate to use the word "vandalism" to describe an edit which reinserts a word which had been there for a few months, and which had been thoroughly discussed, and which was the result of consensus.

Finally, please don't edit other people's comments on talk pages, especially when you see they object.

Cheers, AnnH ♫ 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]