User talk:Pro-Lick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Early Licks

The shill formerly known as Halliburton Shill (a no longer active username).

Links to no longer active "talks". For reference only. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

[edit] Licking

The Licking page went through a big build-up of information and then some female admin came along and deeply reverted it. The article has since been re-written into a short version. Some attempts to add scholarly references was also reverted by the female. AFAICT, the seless females want human licking to be deprecated because they think it is yucky or because it does not enhance their social status and therefor, their authority. Would you please look at the large amount of infomration that was added (it was obviously a lot of work) and see if any of it can be salvaged? -- 71.141.2.144 18:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did take a quick look and restored one of the external links. I'll go back and look at the rest eventually. If there are any specific history links I should look at, let me know.--Pro-Lick 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Just an FYI - the above user is the abusive and permanently banned editor known as Andrew Morrow ( Amorrow) aka Pinktulip aka whatever else. Check out his abusive comments towards FloNight on the AfD for Licking....you can access it through the history. His changes to Licking (the build up happened thanks to his editing over a short period, after the article appeared on AfD) were deleted because of his banned status, not because of his additions. I would encourage you to not discourse with this user, to prevent encouraging his use of anonymous IP's to carry out his abusive tirades (in particular, against female Wikipedians). Just an FYI. DonaNobisPacem 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep an eye of Licking

I was keeping an eye on it anyways. I had it on my user page and watchlist before the AfD went up. As I became aware of as the result of a block, all the admins, not just Musical Linguist, are told to revert/remove anything they confirm to be added by Amorrow. I did see an interesting part about humming birds removed, and I intend to eventually add a bird section that will probably include some of that.--Pro-Lick 04:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It's true, direct instructions from Jimbo are to revert that person's comments wherever they appear. Pro-Lick, you're doing fine work on the licking article, but I don't suggest you communicate with this banned user. He's bad news. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion etc.

I think I've already said it, but I'll say it again. Good job, so far, on your second round at Wikipedia. Just saw your tweaks to the ABC lead "100 experts" etc. So long as its accurate and verifiable I usually don't have a problem with any edits. Keep it up. - RoyBoy 800 01:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, RoyBoy. I appreciate that. I'll continue to do what I can to keep the focus on zealously promoting an accurate, verifiable article that doesn't lose any of the descriptive depth you've provided it already.--Pro-Lick 01:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Unblock requests

I'm fairly sure this user is an Amorrow sockpuppet; the prose, and editing focus, are very characteristic. Nobody else would edit Talk:Abortion as much as this user has (over 280 edits to this single page) nor would have such an obsessive subject focus, combined with a rather characteristic POV on the subjects of gender, abortion etc. As a consequence I reckon this account should not be unblocked. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I got it wrong. This user is a sock of User:Halliburton Shill and not Amorrow, as per discussion with User:Essjay who has checkuser privileges; they are from totally different ISPs. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's him. Nobody else would have Abortion, Talk:Abortion, Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, Post-abortion syndrome, Licking, Lick, Tongue, Saliva, etc. feature so prominently in their contributions in such a short time. Over half of his edits are related to abortion, and many of the rest to licking. Don't unblock. — Apr. 9, '06 [01:27] <freakofnurxture|talk>

I'm sure it's not. Very, very, sure. As in 100%, no doubt. I appreciate your interest in my contributions, however.--Pro-Lick 01:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick and Amorrow are different people, I'm quite confident. I support a quick unblocking. Freakofnurture, email me if you want to know why I'm so sure. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why am I still blocked? User:Freakofnurture provided some vague OR above about being "sure", but nothing on the incidents page and everybody else and checkuser agree that I'm not an Amorrow puppet. See:


Will you people unblock him already? It's obvious that he's not Amorrow, and we need him for an RFM. Get on with it and do your jobs already. Alienus 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean our volunteer jobs? Checkuser showed he's not Amorrow, but is Halliburton Shill. I'll unblock. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. My IP is still blocked, however. I've emailed you the address.

You don't have to tell me how much volunteer jobs suck: All the responsibility of a real job, none of the pay. Having said that, once you do volunteer, people depend on you, even if they never give you a penny. That's why I would never consider being an admin. The problem here, though, is not a delay due to apathy, but rather due to error. There is no reason he should ever have been mistaken for Amorrow.

Anyhow, thank you for unblocking. Alienus 15:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro, are you involved in this CA-MRSA mess? I can add you to the RFM if you like. Alienus 16:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Not even sure what CA-MRSA stands for. Link me to the mess and I can tell you whether I want to get involved or not.--Pro-Lick 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

This 3RR report is in error. Here's why:

[edit] Replies

Summary: In the paraphrased words of the repliers: The evidence does not matter. We can block you if we feel like it and block you again for what we blocked you for already in the past.--Pro-Lick 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. As the WP:3RR policy page makes perfectly plain, three reverts is not an entitlement, it's a limit - you can be blocked for disruption after fewer than three. What you were doing was disruptive, and that is the problem. Please stop making tendentious edits. Just zis Guy you know? 08:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree, but that's the reason I was blocked in this case. If I can be blocked for disruption for fewer than 3, why weren't the other editors of the page at that time also blocked (one of them being the block requesting admin)? Why was the block a 3RR violation block? All I'm asking is that the policy, or your interpretation thereof, be applied consistently. As to tendentious edits, that was addressed in the review. Some of the edits were cooperative or requested and not initiated by me, including the previous version edit that was used as the base.--Pro-Lick 16:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Multiple reverts, repeated tendentious editing and prolific use of sockpuppets to evade the block add up to a compelling reason not to unblock this account. Note to Pro-Lick: the block is an indefinite one, it won't expire. Just zis Guy you know? 09:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for again making your opinion clear. For others reading, the sockpuppet thing with Amorrow was clearly not me and I was unblocked (see pre-3RR about Freakofnurture's less than good-faith block and refusal to unblock). Prior to that, I did have a blog entry that caused a small number of meatpuppets. Again, I was blocked and unblocked with regard to that and fixed my blog so that didn't happen again. What I did wrong under this 3RR block was not violate 3RR. It was to allow myself to get wrapped-up in a minor edit war. It allowed those that appear to be holding a grudge and an opposing POV to quickly tally up a block request which was used to justify blocking me again. I have been blocked well over 1 week (and counting) for that. So, yes, the unblock request will remain for other non-involved admins to review.--Pro-Lick 07:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Amorrow. I'm talking about your use of socks to evade your block. But you know that. Just zis Guy you know? 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't use socks and never have. Not sure whether you know that or not. I appreciate you clarifying your point, even if it is incorrect.--Pro-Lick 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have answered your claim about your reverts below, and have pointed out that you were aware that reverting different things still counts as reverting, since I posted an explanation of that, which you deleted, shortly after you arrived here. (Of course, if you deleted it unread, then you could claim that you weren't aware of the rule, but I don't think that would help your case.) You also recently called on another editor's block to be extended, because he had edit warred before and because he was "fully aware of the rules and of what gaming means".[2]
Finally, although you evenually changed the link on your user page to a different link (which some people also find offensive, with stuff about "licking rectums for pay") with the edit summary: "provide new external link to a page that does not call for disruption (not that the other one actually does)",[3] after the old one had been repeatedly removed by administrators, I note that you are linking your Wiktionary user page to that blog where you call on outsiders to come to Wikipedia and vandalize the abortion article with edits like "abortion is fertilization for flowers". AnnH ♫ 09:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I had previously been blocked, then unblocked, with regard to my blog. The rest are new claims that have nothing to do with a 3RR violation. Regarding your following statement, you've made your point, at least 3 times now, and it's clear you feel I should be blocked for anything more than 1 edit on a page, regardless of whether edits have anything to do with each other. Please let other admins not personally involved review.--Pro-Lick 16:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no point in arguing that you weren't making the same revert. I took the trouble to explain to you shortly after your arrival that if you make different reverts, each one still counts as a revert under the three-revert rule. See here. It was quite a lengthy post, as I didn't want to see a newcomer blocked for breaking a rule that he didn't fully understand. You deleted my whole explanation twelve minutes later, and just left the first paragraph.[4] Whether or not you had anything to do with the "previous version reverted to" is irrelevant. That you reverted to it can be shown by comparing the two versions,[5] and by looking at your edit summary ("rv Goodandevil's ongoing disruption of consensus in talk"). So your first revert was a revert. Your second revert was truly your second revert. Your third revert was a partial revert, as I made clear in the report. (And remember I gave you a full explanation about partial reverts, which you deleted from your talk page.) You were not reverting to the "consensus version", contrary to your claims. Some people accepted that version; others rejected it. Even if it had been a consensus version, you would still have been in violation of 3RR by putting it back. The 3RR page says that if a revert really needs to be made, someone else will probably make it. Reverts 4a and 4b had nothing to do with reverts 1, 2, and 3, or with each other, but that makes no difference, as you know from my explanation that you deleted. And, as I showed on the page where I reported it, you had made those very same reverts previously. AnnH ♫ 09:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleting parts on this talk is NOT -- I repeat NOT helping your case at all. It is only proving that you are willing to delete/revert anything that is proven against you. I would highly suggest that you sit back and chill out on a very cold case of brew and re-think your thoughts about wanting to get unblocked here. At this rate your getting no place. Don't you agree? --Scott Grayban 16:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
And somebody should look into Sgrayban. This is the 2nd edit bordering on vandalism he's made here [6]. I have deleted nothing from this page.--Pro-Lick 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually you have... Look at [7] -- you clearly deleted proof of the 3RRR from a admin that posted it here. History shows it was you that did it. And having anyone look at me is funny. --Scott Grayban 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait a second it was your buddy User:RoyBoy well this is going to get real insteresting now. Good luck on ever getting unblocked and good luck to User:RoyBoy cause he is going to need it for his deletion here. --Scott Grayban 17:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Scott. The link you provided shows Pro-Lick moving the 3RR discussion out of the top of the page to an area lower, and responing section by section. I cannot say he never deleted comment/3RR proff, but the link you gave is not it. And the only recent edit to this talk page from RoyBoy was adding a section below, not deleting anything. So I really don't see the violations you are claiming. - TexasAndroid 17:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Your absolutely right -- My apologies to Pro-Lick. I didn't scroll all the way down to see that. I'm sorry. --Scott Grayban 17:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked is denied. Regardless of the validity of the 3RR block, it has now been proven that you have been using an enormous amount of sockpuppets to circumvent process. --InShaneee 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proven? Isn't there a WP:V requiremenet? I.e., sources. I find it odd that something that is false can be "proven". Do you have a recommendation on how to resolve this?--Pro-Lick 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The sockpuppet accounts were verified with our CheckUser tool. --InShaneee 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. However, that's also OR and not false-positive proof. How does one resolve checkuser verification errors?--Pro-Lick 02:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Y'know, the policies you keep citing, WP:OR, WP:V, etc... those apply to article content, not to administrative actions. Wikipedia does not guarantee due process. You still seem to think that this site is somehow rule-bound and process-oriented. It's not. This has been explained to you repeatedly, in detail, by me and others. You don't seem to hear answers you don't like too well. That's a habit that will run you into wall after wall in this world.
As for checkuser errors, I suggest you contact the administrator who ran the checkuser, in this case Essjay. He's got email enabled. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll contact Essjay.--Pro-Lick 02:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for unblocking

I suggest that you take it up with User:Zoe. I understand that he or she is willing to lift the block if you tone down the disruption. I don't have any reason to think that Zoe would be unreasonable. Jkelly 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply.--Pro-Lick 01:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet

Uhm, I thought that Pro-lick was using this account because he was asked to close down Haliburton Shill. If the latter account is closed, then calling this a sock puppet is rather misleading. It almost makes it sound as if he's hiding the fact that he's the user formerly known as Haliburton Shill. Perhaps the sockpuppet notice is unnecessary. Alienus 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been very open that I am Halliburton Shll and that I created the new username per admin request. Nothing new or shocking.--Pro-Lick 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Pro-Lick, I don't think you told anyone until it was revealed through a usercheck, so I wouldn't call it being "very open". But I accept that there was no obligation to tell anyone, since the Halliburton Shill account had been abandoned, and since there was therefore no attempt to use it to vote twice or to violate 3RR. But you weren't very open about User:AbortMe, User:Cry Me a Shill, User:Vote Machine Malfunction, User:Curettage, User:Annalina, User:Undermined, or User:Ban.wma. AnnH ♫ 09:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Except that none of those were me or are me. I've had 2 accounts on Wiki. Haliburton Shill, which is still my username on Wiktionary, and Pro-Lick. As I've already stated, those may in fact be meat puppets that I was responsible for as the result of my blog, but I've already been blocked and unblocked for that violation. Please don't sneak comments in under a different summary.--Pro-Lick 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The Checkuser established that in addition to being Halliburton Shill, you were also AbortMe, Cry Me a Shill, Vote Machine Malfunction, and Curettage. There was strong technical evidence linking you to Undermined and Ban.wma. And the Annalina test was inconclusive, though it's interesting that your myspace page, it links to all Dick Cheney's Shill at Halliburton's friends, and one such friend is called Annalina. Her entry has recently been updated, but a week ago, it said:
I really like Wikipedia. I wonder if they'll let me add a Madam Datum article. My user name on it is Pro-Lick."
She made exactly the same edit that you called for on your blog: "Abortion is fertilization for flowers."
As for sneaking in comments under a different summary, I don't even know what you're talking about. I made a fullpage edit to your talk page, and put comments in various places, with the edit summary: Comments. Response to claim he didn't violate 3RR (I had already explained that DIFFERENT reverts count). Pointing out his Wiktionary page still links to blog calling for disruptioin of Wikipedia.[8] I fail to see where the "sneaking" is. AnnH ♫ 22:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sneaking is doing edits all over the place via fullpage edit. Your summary and timing would indicate a response directly to the 3RR issue, along with your usual accompanying essays about how evil I am, even though they have nothing to do with the 3RR.
Checkuser is false positive-proof? As for the rest, I don't control people's edits here nor their myspace friends nor their myspace pages, etc. My friend policy on myspace can be summed up as everyone that thinks they are in a war with me here would be accepted.--Pro-Lick 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which is what makes the generic sock puppet notice misleading in a way that may bias admins against you in the future. Alienus 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alienus. I'm very happy with the adjustment you made to my user page.--Pro-Lick 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm getting the impression that admins often work on reputation. In other words, if they see evidence that you're a dreaded outlaw, they won't give you a fair shake afterwards. This is, of course, inconsistent with a fair implementation of the rules, but it's quite consistent with human nature. Alienus 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's consistent with the rules. WP:AGF explicitly has lmits, and exhausitng the community's patience is a blockable offence. Tendentious editing is against policy too. Sometimes people rehabilitate, sometimes they self-destruct. Bear in mind that I am well known for beinding over backwards in the AGF department, others are not so generous. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that the policy is that someone that has previously been punished/blocked for a violation should be punished twice for the same violation?--Pro-Lick 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the policy is that people who exhaust the community's patience get the bum's rush. Just zis Guy you know? 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there a policy source for that?--Pro-Lick 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLOCK#Users who exhaust the community's patience. You've been shown before. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a whole separate policy line that results in a user being banned and listed on a banned list, not a meta element to be applied ad hoc.--Pro-Lick 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if no administrator is willing to unblock you then that is de facto a community banning. You should accept it gracefully and move on. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
An interesting POV, Katefan0, but not a sourced one. A very small minority of relatively closely bound admins seems like far less than a de facto community. You may have noted already that I have not reinserted the unblock request template. Consider that graceful acceptance that broader input is required.--Pro-Lick 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, blocking policy allows blocking of users who exhaust the community's patience. The fact that not one of the several hundred admins is prepared to step in on your behalf, even after posting to WikiEN-L is significant, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 13:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It might be if I had posted an unblock request to WikiEN-L.--Pro-Lick 14:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to source something that's self-evident. You remain blocked, ergo no administrator has seen fit to unblock you, therefore you remain banned by a consensus of administrators. I expect that will stay the same no matter how many times you put the unblock template on your talk page. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Dick Cheney's Shill at Halliburton is presently being removed even though I have not been informed of any vandalism caused by it except for a short period after it was posted. As far as I can tell, since I updated the blog, nothing similar to the "beautiful" changes have been made. There's no shortage of other people, including admins, both linking and, in effect, using their user pages as blogs. Even the chair of the mediation committee User:Essjay.

I'm not aware of any admins who link to a blog calling for disruption and vandalism of Wikipedia. Of course it's okay to link to your own blog or user page if it's unobjectionable. AnnH ♫ 09:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
At the time of your response, it no longer called for disruption. If anything, it promoted the use and growth of Wiki. It never called for vandalism. Your "unobjectionable" addition is your own POV, pro-censorship word that has no specific meaning. Maybe you were referring to shock sites.--Pro-Lick 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandilism

Please quit vandilizing the Emo Slang page. It is not fair of you to do so to the people who actually care about the page and if you do not stop I will report you to admin. Thanks for understanding, (Emoholic 16:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

I gave Emoholic a final warning about inserting his spam link. —Guanaco 16:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Pro-Lick 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I replyied to Guanaco and explained the situation. Please quit vandilizing. The things you are posting are indeed vandilism, whereas I am following a form that other administrators told me to use to get the link added. If you had comments to make about the link not vandilizing the page would be a great way to make your opinion credible. Also, not having another username that was blocked would help your case. (Emoholic 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

I see you found someone to unblock you. Please edit less tendentiously in the future. We're all encyclopedists here. Let's be boring, not contentious. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis lead

Hey Pro-Lick, I've been grumpy lately and that's resulted it rather sour comments by me. Anyhow, I've moved your good "not verified" sentence to the end of the ABC defining paragraph. I think that is better for flow, and helps keep the lead to 3 paragraphs, which I think is more aethetically pleasing. I wanted your thoughts on it, and if you think its good enough then I can copy and paste it to Abortion (actually I still have to implement the "women centered" addition, me do now). Thanks for you patience, as I realize I'm not the only one to be frustrated through all of this. - RoyBoy 800 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I preferred the 1st paragraph as it was. As Sophia pointed out in talk, those using Wikipedia for a medical reference (even though they definitely should not) should have it made clear from the start that abortion is not a cancer risk. That remains the most significant fact about ABC at this point. The prior structure accomplished that and provided a concise explanation of ABC, followed by a fuller explanation of its reasoning. I have no idea when this current block will be resolved, so feel free to add more comments here.--Pro-Lick 17:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.0

Feedback please. I'll watch your talk page for any comments. - RoyBoy 800 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you asking, RoyBoy. My response may seem a lot less appreciative.
It violates WP:V. In a word, it is tendentious, just like the one that's been forced into the abortion article. It is still a POV pushing, unsourced compromise with a small group and its meat puppets. Even the medical definition is abbreviated and distorted as the result of the context, suggesting death is part of the medically accepted definition of abortion.
Here’s yet another source to add to the ignored source list. The ‘’Oxford Thesaurus’’: In all the entries that contain abortion, death (including its variants) is not listed. The main entries include miscarriage, monster, prevention, termination, and veto.
I think the only potential solution for this now is arbitration.--Pro-Lick 16:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
But is it worse than the current version? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Replace "But is it" with "Therefore it is". I.e., yes.--Pro-Lick 21:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not consistent with what you said above, where it's "just like" the current one. The only difference you alluded to is that the proposed one "abbreviates and distorts" the medical definition, while the current one leaves it out entirely. Now, how is the proposed one worse than the current one? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
How is abbreviates and distorts better than absence? It adds to the end that medically changes the definition to a set period of time, nothing else. By the continuation of the paragraph itself and context, it implies that the medical definition agrees with everything else.--Pro-Lick 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think I see what you're saying: You see the last sentence of the paragraph reaching back to the first one and connecting the medical definition with the word "death", since it doesn't specifically disown that idea? Am I understanding you correctly? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is another perspective; but I cannot agree it implies the medical definition includes death. If "however," was added back in the medical sentence that may further delineate the two; but I feel they are sufficiently seperated. And as far as I know arbitration does not make content decisions/judgements; their decisions certainly impact on content as contributors are restricted... but they do not decide the content themselves. - RoyBoy 800 22:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
See above for medical response. Regarding arbitration, it does not write content. As you note, that doesn't mean that issues affecting content, such as policies and contributors, are not open to arbitration. After all, the goal of it like everything else is to improve the encyclopedia. It is clear that the sources are ignored. That's a clear violation of WP:V with the ongoing rewirte bordering, if not violating, on WP:NOR. No admins are stepping in to enforce it. Call that what you like, but we now have policies, contributors, and admin all involved with an RFC that went nowhere. Unless you have another option in mind, arb is all that remains.--Pro-Lick 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The sources were not ignored, they were consulted and found to be unencyclopedic. Death is verifiable in some sources; and hence does not violate policy. - RoyBoy 800 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The sources were found unencyclopedic by what? OR and a poll? Other more encyclopedic sources? Please point me to the policy regarding the determination of unencyclopedic sources and how each specific source "found" qualified as such. Or, presumably, this has been discussed in great detail already and you can link me to the part of the abortion discussion where these determinations were made. As to death, it is verifiable in a tiny minority of sources (violating [WP:NPOV]]), and "some" qualifies for WP:WEASEL. These sources must have all been found encyclopedic, so there must be a link to the source of this encyclopedic verification too.--Pro-Lick 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What I meant by that is they are not definitively encyclopedic; I didn't mean they couldn't be used. They are but one consideration in our editorial process. There is no policy regarding that, and no poll needed for me to understand they (generally speaking) are unencyclopedic in their style and focus. - RoyBoy 800 15:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting that it was a POV choice you made. You've provided further evidence for my statements about sources being ignored and selected to fit POV, both clear violations of policy.--Pro-Lick 15:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick, you should read m:Power structure if you haven't already. Your above comment makes it clear that you still want there to be some solid underlying authority here, and it really bothers you that there isn't one. There's no set way to determine that sources are "encyclopedic", it's up to people's judgement, in the hope that we each apply common sense in a good-faith attempt to be intellectually honest and neutral. Well, maybe not all of us, but enough of us to get things sorted out in the long run... -GTBacchus(talk) 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. While I do that, please read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. They are called policy. Thank you, also, for providing even more support for what I stated at the very beginning: this needs to go to arbitration. You have your own POV of what policy should be. Until policy is rewritten to comply with that POV, it's POV. I'll happily let a group of arbitrators decide versus the present group of tendentious, "we'll pick whatever sources that agree with us" policy violators.--Pro-Lick 04:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Super. What will you say when the arbitrators tell you you're wrong? All the shit I've told you about policy being descriptive, not prescriptive, and about the interpretation of policy being up to consensus - I've been repeating stuff I've seen arbitrators say! But no, you know more about Wikipedia than all the rest of us put together. How ignorant and arrogant you are. I notice you're still unable to get anyone to take your unblock requests seriously - have you tried emailing every active administrator yet? Cause after you do that, you really won't be able to say it's a "very small minority of relatively closely bound admins" holding you down. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Re the Arb question, if they do, I'll say "super" and wave. At least then I'll know that it's truly the Wiki-way as opposed to simply the POV of people that keep making excuses for not providing sources and violating policy. If you're so certain that's the way it is and how it will turn out, why not teach "ignorant and arrogant" me a lesson and bring it to arb yourself? Thanks, BTW, for the comment. It shows a positive role model of the knowledge that can be learned by supposedly reading and repeating what arbitrators say. I guess WP:NPA is simply there for interpretation too. Let's see, what else am I accused of this time? Oh, no I haven't emailed every admin nor have any intent to. I emailed about 10, less if I subtract you, Essjay, and a couple other admins far too personally involved. Please post no more tendentious replies unless you have sources or are informing me that you have submitted this to arb. I'm aware of your POV and don't need you to repeat it ad infinitum. Here's an enjoyable link for you to check out and keep busy with, also from the meta site: m:Foundation issues. I found it on the page you linked to that "tries to describe the status quo" under the Precedent section. In closing, let us contemplate: "... if our policies (e.g. policies of the English wiki) are followed, it is possible for anyone to become a respected editor."mPS--Pro-Lick 08:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no attack in pointing out ignorance. I'm ignorant of many things, and it's no disgrace being ignorant, unless you willfully cling to it, and refuse to learn. I didn't intend it as an attack to say that you're arrogant either, but as an observation that you're welcome to take constructively and try to be less arrogant, if you're smart. It turns out being arrogant doesn't work too well, as a strategy in life, unless your goal is to create conflict and drama. (Note how much respect it's won you here.) As for taking the page to arbitration, I don't see that as being the next move. (Hint: They'd most likely reject the case.) I've got my own way of working on that page, and I'm a lot more patient than you are.
Your continued simplistic understanding of policy is transparently incorrect. You seem to think that a written policy obviates the need to exercise any kind of judgement; that's a silly idea. The editors supporting the latest suggestion of the opening paragraph sincerely believe that it complies with the policies of which you're so enamored, and although they may be wrong, they're not blatantly wrong. It's a judgement call. Your judgement is not regarded as infallible, although you keep informing us of it as if it's plain fact, and not your opinion.
Oh, and I didn't "accuse" you of emailing every admin either - I invited you too, quite sincerely. I'd like to see you disabused of the errroneous notion that it's some spiteful but insignificant clique that's somehow managed to get you in a corner and pick on you. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm impressed with your ability to re-spin the same thing over and over again and wiki-lawyer your way out of responsibility. That's praise and constructive observation. I requested you didn't. "Please post no more tendentious replies unless you have sources or are informing me that you have submitted this to arb." Still no sources. Still no arb. Our closing thought for today is from WP:NPOV quoting Jimbo Wales:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia....--Pro-Lick 09:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm optimistic we will transition to Abortion/First paragraph at some point. - RoyBoy 800 21:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

I recently responded to a peer review request for this article, and User:RoyBoy requested I pass the following sentiment therein along to you:

Good job walking the NPOV line, especially considering the subject matter; I kept thinking the article was starting to lean one way or the other, but then something would always bring it back again.

I get the impression it was a bit of a struggle getting there, but I think you can be proud of what you've acheived :-) --jwandersTalk 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a struggle. Fortunately, this particular struggle worked out fairly well. SOPHIA deserves a lot of credit for that too. I'd still like the immediate beginning to recognize that it is not a medical concern. As you indicate, it requires a full reading, even the 1st paragraph, to get what should be summarized in the first sentence. Sum up the reality first; get to the details and perspective 2nd.--Pro-Lick 09:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion article

There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 19:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)