User talk:Instaurare/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note to all editors: I am under a self-imposed topic ban on abortion/abortion-related articles until 5 March 2011 because I have been blocked twice for violating 1RR on abortion articles. This does not mean my contributions or discussions in abortion articles should be disregarded, I am just taking a break. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

welcome back, NYyankees51

Welcome back, 51. Please be good and stay out of trouble. --Kenatipo (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Promotional user name

• Hi there NYyankees51. I have concerns that your user name seems promotional as seen under our username policy as it promotes the New York Yankees quite clearly. Daniel Case above has pointed out that other users have had similar club user names. I do find that the user name example provided by Daniel Case has an additional word 'fan', which somehow goes into a grey territory - and that's not the case with your user name, in my opinion. I wish to point out that if you are amenable to it, you may think about filing for a name change request at CHU. This will allow your editorial history to also be transferred to the new name. If you believe that your user name does not contravene our username policy, kindly respond here or on my talk page; and I shall then subsequently propose that we open a neutral request for comment on the user name. At the same time, on the positive side (which convinces me of Case's argument) is the fact that even my name alludes to a corporation. And therefore, your contribution history could be critical in allowing you the usage of this user name. In all, apologies for the inconvenience in advance and waiting for your reply. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wifione. I am just a Yankees fan and have zero connection to them, but frankly I don't care one way or another if my username needs to be changed. My only concern is that my agreement with HJ Mitchell requires me to edit under this name only, so we would need to check if he's okay with changing it. I would request a neutral third opinion just so we don't need to go through the hassle if we don't need to, but I'm happy to do it if we do. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no way this is necessary. We've got a large number of users expressing their support for athletic teams in exactly this fashion. I've just tried a random selection of team names, looking for username matches (for example, SFGiants*, NYGiants*, Angelsfan*.) All of them had matches. There's a difference between promoting a team as a fan via a username, and promoting the team on behalf of the team; there's no rule against using your username to root for a sports team. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

JP, I think that makes sense. NYyankees51, I guess then there's no need to change your user name as such. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting -- ‎ Loughner's best friend

Hello, NYyankees51. The reason I feel this information fits better in the Public response section...is because it comes out of nowhere in the Political climate section and that section is dealing more with what politicians and other prominent figures think. If you read the paragraph of the Public response section regarding whether or not the shooting was the result of politics, it makes more sense to stick Loughner's best friend's thoughts there. Especially since that is the section dealing with the general public's thoughts. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As also stated on the talk page, I moved it here. It's still in the Political climate section, but is now better placed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Equality Matters

I left a question for you at Talk:Media Matters for America#Equality Matters.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting

A few things. Can you please use the {{Cite foo}} sort of templates when adding sources. The easy way to do this is enable reftools (My preferences -> Editing gadgets -> reftools) Straight links are bad and encourage link rot. Also blogs are not normaly considered reliable sources cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Schilling

I reverted your addition of non-notable, promotional info on Bobby Schilling. I see that you've been blocked for sockpuppetry and abuse related to this page before, so I'd warn you to think very carefully before engaging in editwarring or other frowned-upon behavior. Arbor832466 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, some of the boxes on your user page raise serious questions about your ability or intention to make balanced edits to political pages. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Then what's the point of userboxes if they disqualify you from editing? NYyankees51 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Question on Revision

I would like to know why you felt this revision was necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Having read the article for the first time today, I think the removal of those tags was quite reasonable. I don't think any of those statements were particularly problematic as being POV in themselves - a direct quote shows the POV of the person involved, but that's not unreasonable. An argument could be made that a number of statements in combination could mean the article (or a section of it) fails to be POV, but tagging individual sentences of it is not a good way to indicate that.

Wouldn't the article's talk page be a better place to raise the issue than here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I understand that. But why the removal of the {{NPOV}} template at the top? I will suggest to the user to head to the talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Because he didn't give any reasons for it. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Most people are guilty of that. I would recommend that next time, before reverting, that you discuss his reasons with him (or any user). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I had just assumed that he was adding it to call attention to the in-line tags. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see how one would think that. I have forwarded Demiurge1000's suggestion to take it to talk to the user and at present am not sure if he has or not, so you might want to take a look. Let me know if you need any help as I will be glad to jump in as needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WRVA

Rule of thumb when dealing with AM stations, there isn't an -AM callsign. It is just "WRVA" (Richmond) and "WRVA-FM" (Raleigh). Confusing, I know, but we have to go by what the FCC names things. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Personal attacks are not tolerated here on Wikipedia. Your recent edits have been in breach of the "no personal attacks" policy, which can be found here. If you continue to attack other editors, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

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

Thanks!

For the barnstar. KeptSouth (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in Maryland

Hi, please don't post a single poll as representative for an issue when a short Google search reveals that the poll is considered a push poll and not neutral. This makes an article unbalanced and there are not always people willing to cleanup, which could result in reducing the quality of the encyclopedia. Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted a single poll to get the section started. Other polls should definitely be added. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Keeping a low profile

I stuck my neck out when I unblocked you and, when I did, I kind of hoped you'd at least attempt to keep a low profile. I wouldn't presume to tell you which articles you can and can't edit, but, if I were in your position, I would be very careful around topics like same-sex marriage, especially when I had a userpage that advocated some pretty controversial political and social views. It's generally not a good idea to have lots of userboxes on controversial subjects, though it's not explicitly against policy. Whatever our views on subjects, though, nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits, whether to talk pages or articles. Just a friendly reminder, that's all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell, thanks for the message. I'll try to clean up the userboxes on my page, it is a bit excessive. I think my editing does not reflect my userpage, and if it ever does I hope someone will tell me. If you have any other concerns let me know. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hey NYYankees--Please try to be more selective in sourcing your edits to BLPs, especially regarding controversial subjects like abortion. I reverted an edit you made to Dan Lipinski because the sources were Christianity Today's blog, www.LifeSiteNews.com and the Weekly Standard while removing cites from GovTrack and the Washington Post. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arbor, I added those sources because while they have a stated POV, there was no reason to believe the parts of the articles I was citing were false. That said, I'll try to find better sources. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note

I have no problem with the removal of my previous posting here, since I do it myself with unwanted messages on my talk page, and you certainly can regard it as antagonistic. Unfortunatley, I would rather have it remained here and not on the Honor Rally talk page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Violence Against Pro-lifers

It was actually a subset of the Pro-life page as a counter to the Violence against abortion providers section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-life&oldid=325214345#Violence_against_Pro-lifers I did just see that Wikipedia now does have this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jim_Pouillon If anything this article should be linked to the articles on pro-life and violence assoicated with pro-life.

Honor Rally

Not to browbeat or scold, but your replies to well reasoned posts have been in a way non-responsive. If you could address address directly arguments, e.g, the section is too long, say more than you object and just like it the way you want it, there would be more involved discussion. Of course nothing obliges you to do so, and you have been courteous as can be, but it does have a way of taking you out of the discussion and away from forming consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I have a new proposal outlined there. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just my 2¢

When you accepted HJ Mitchell's deal to unblock you, one of his stipulations was that you edit constructively. You also said that you "absolutely will work hard to gain the trust of the community". Start by honestly assessing why you're here editing Wikipedia. From my vantage point, looking at your userpage and edit history, it looks like you're here to push your political, religious and social agenda. I know you've said that your editing does not reflect the beliefs stated on your userpage, but some of that is still coming through. Having to delete comments on your talk page means you're probably doing something wrong... What caught my attention recently were your edits at Tea Party movement: [1] and [2] which removed two edits, with the comments "not significant enough to go in lead" and "remove questionable piece of information; definitely shouldn't be first in the section". But instead of moving them to a place that seemed more appropriate, you removed them completely.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you can't make an edit without your political, religious or social beliefs clouding your objectivity, then maybe you shouldn't be editing that article -- at least not now and not without a lot of introspection to make sure you're truly being objective. I know you said you feel that if you're not allowed to contribute to those kinds of articles, you can't really contribute at all, but I think that's BS. It might be a good idea for you to at least spend some time editing other less controversial articles where there's no way for your strongly held beliefs to get in the way. Remember, that during this "second chance" given to you by HJ Mitchell, your edits will be subjected to additional scrutiny. Do you know where your grandfather served in WWII or where your father served in Vietnam? If so, maybe spend some time improving some of those articles. And, honestly consider pitching in on Great Backlog Drive and maybe pay some dues and really give something back to Wikipedia doing something that you might not consider interesting or fun. Now that would go a long way towards earning the trust of the community. Mojoworker (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mojoworker, thanks for the message. I went ahead and deleted all the userboxes on my page because you're not the only one to express concern about them. I think the strong majority of my edits are fair. Often I try to provide balance to articles and it's perceived as bias, and I'm sorry if it comes across that way. Thanks again for your concern. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Idea for a category

Do you think it might be a good idea to have a category for former pro-choice activists who are now active against abortion? I know we have at least three pages on such people, and for at least one of them it's her only claim to notability. On the other hand I suppose the rejoicing and press over these "conversions" does come from a very fringe-y corner, so maybe it isn't worth it, but what do you think? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think the rejoicing comes from the fringe, for most, if not all, it comes from mainstream pro-lifers, as with Abby Johnson (activist) and Bernard Nathanson. I think it's definitely a good idea. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think would be a good name for the category? And what should be the criteria for inclusion? Because Nathanson was actually a pro-choice activist, founding NARAL, but Abby Johnson was just a clinic manager - does that count? Does Norma McCorvey count since she was by no means a pro-choice activist but she's really famous as Roe? Does Aleck Bourne count since he was an abortion provider and was involved in an important case, but wasn't actually an activist either? To what degree was Marjorie Dannenfelser a pro-choice activist, and does it matter? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I don't need a talkback - I'll be keeping an eye out for a reply. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my comment about fringe-ness was more to say that I'm not sure if such a category would create POV/balance issues. It would be near-impossible to make such a category for the opposite conversion - not because it definitely didn't happen, but because the pro-choice side doesn't tend to make a big deal out of it, while the "pro-life" side makes a huge deal out of it. So we'd have to weigh "we only have verifiable information for conversions in this direction because only one side cares" vs. "this makes it look like all the conversions are in one direction." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How does "Pro-choice people turned pro-life"? I'm not sure what the criteria is for naming categories. I think any pro-choice person who has become pro-life can qualify, as long as we know at least some details about their conversion, so Nathanson, McCorvey, Bourne, Johnson, Dannenfelser, etc. can qualify. Just my opinion, though. I see what you're saying about the balance. I'm not an expert on categories so I don't know if anyone would raise an issue about it, and if they do, they can create a category for the other side, though I don't know if they could find anyone for it. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich comes to mind, though of course "elected official"(/"candidate") =/= "activist" both in terms of coverage and in terms of whether they'd belong in the category. Do you think one of us should take the issue to a broader forum to get input there? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let's take it to a broader forum, because I don't know much about categories. If you wouldn't mind doing it that would be great - I don't have time to do it tonight or tomorrow. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, it's at Talk:Pro-life. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, would you be interested in weighing in at Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex? Two editors are claiming there's a neutrality problem, but they're stubbornly refusing to discuss it even though the rules require them either to discuss the problem or to remove the neutrality tag, so maybe you, with your insight into the conservative mind-set, can tell me what the hell they're on about, so the problem (shock!) can actually be fixed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag. I'm worried that I wasn't clear, though - I really did want to know if you saw a neutrality problem, or could figure out what DC and Haymaker were talking about. If there is a problem, the tag can certainly stay. The problem with putting a tag and not discussing it is that there is no way of fixing a problem unless we know what it is! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you were asking. I have no problem with the tag as long as it's discussed/a reason is given. If they do want to discuss it, I'll get involved. As for your other messages, see above. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Abuse Response Filing

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 203.20.35.28. Unfortunately, there was a problem with your filing and it has been rejected. Please see Wikipedia:Abuse response/203.20.35.28 for details on why the filing was rejected. You may also review filing criteria for abuse reports filings. DQ.alt (t) (e) 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion General Sanctions

You violated the 1RR sanction that was placed on Lila Rose yesterday as an article relating to abortion. See WP:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community for the exact wording of the sanction. If you revert twice within 24 hours again, you may be blocked, or an uninvolved admin may choose to ban you from the topic for a time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Setting up autoarchiving

Next time you do, make sure you change the location to match the page you put the template on, instead of leaving it as "Example". :-) Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I also bumped it up to 30 days and told it to always leave a few threads on the page. If you want to move it back to 21, though, I won't argue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making a second revert on Planned Parenthood within 24 hours in violation of general sanctions on abortion-related articles. 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) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The first revert was a revert of vandalism, as per consistently established consensus.

Decline reason:

Content dispute≠vandalism. Therefore the premise of your request is invalid. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 1 March 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.

Dude, your first revert was replacing "anti-abortion" with "pro-life" when referring to people whose opposition to abortion didn't inspire them to commit acts of terrorism, and your second was replacing "pro-life" with "anti-abortion" when referring to people who those whose opposition to abortion did. That's not a vandalism issue, that's you using No true Scotsman. (Not to pile on you - I actually came here to leave you a message about your second edit before noticing you'd been blocked.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Sarek know that the edit you reverted was the only edit ever by an IP [guest], not someone important like Roscelese ? --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Civility, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, do you see anything in the WP:General sanctions that says it matters who was being reverted? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, Yank has established a pattern of calling people "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" depending on whether he approves of their actions or not. This will not do in the long run. And I'm being quite polite here, seeing as I'm a Red Sox fan. PhGustaf (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PhGustaf, can you provide examples of that? Granted, the edit was questionable, but I'm not POV-pushing. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you showed that pattern in your last couple of edits. Maybe that's too small a sample space to demonstrate a "pattern". But you are, in a sense, on probation, and I suggest you tread lightly. PhGustaf (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Sarek. No, but I think reverting an anonymous, one-time editor is much less serious than reverting one of the gang. The edit reverted may well have been random vandalism. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe it might be an idea for you to take a break from the abortion area before you end up topic banned? I'm sure you can find something less controversial to edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I'll take a few days to cool off. NYyankees51 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of my talk page. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3