User talk:Severa/archive2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Abortion
You might want to take another look at your recent reversion. Other than the changing fetus to human being, I believe Big Bears edit to be an improvement.--Colle|
|Talk-- 02:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Protection of Abortion
I have temporarily protected the Abortion article. Although I have not folowed the history of this article, I am sure that every single word in the article has been hotly debated. The user BigBear has been accused of being a sock of User:Jason Gastrich, who it appears has been involved in a number of POV wars. If this is the case then I think that BigBear can be indefinitely blocked but we need a sock check to confirm it first. If no one unprotects before me, I will unprotect the article tomorrow morning. JeremyA 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- The BigBear sock account has been blocked so I unprotected the article. I have added it to my watchlist and I will reprotect if necessary. JeremyA 03:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Abortion talk
I don't intend to engage in an edit war so have posted my reasonings for the revert on Abortion's talk. I'd appreciate it if you'd view it, and make comments. Chooserr 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made a comment about your recent edits on the talk page. I don't consider it a personal attack, though it is something that you may wish to address, and so I wanted to alert you. Perhaps you will see some truth in my comments. 84.146.240.137
I honestly had no idea that that image would be controversial, or I would have addressed the discussion sooner rather than later. I added my own response to the matter, in case you are interested.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Need your feedback here. Essentially I want to know if we should go through the trouble of seperating the articles (eg. Jane collective should be in Abortion history, not Abortion law); or should we merge them? - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
"rvv"
Kyd, hi. I wonder if there's any way I could request that you not use "revert vandalism" or its abbreviation "rvv" as an edit summary when reverting Pro-Lick's edits? They're just not vandalism. I'd really appreciate if you could help demonstrate that we don't refer to each others edits as vandalism around here; otherwise, we're setting the wrong example. Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I guess I'd go with an edit summary like "restoring previous version pending talk page discussion, please do not revert without discussing." Even better, don't revert, but restore the content in an improved, sourced way, if sources are what's missing. I understand that Pro-Lick is being difficult, but we can't just dismiss him as a vandal, because he's not that. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- And he reads your talk pages. And he likes most of the anime you like. And finds your reversions more than a little odd given your interest in science and, presumably, verifiability. We'll address NPOV another time.--Pro-Lick 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know you were right and I was wrong. :"D Pro-Licks objections are usually poor; but the point of more context of the concept did resonate with me as that was one of your points a long time back. Even though I still feel the lead should tease them into the article for a better examination of the actual evidence; it forced me to come up with something to address the broader context:
- "Most of the medical community are skeptical of the ABC hypothesis; and it is seen by some pro-choice advocates as pro-life propoganda. [link]"
Do you think that's sufficient? And I wanted your opinion on the NPOV tag added by Pro-Lick. Should I remove it; since Pro-Lick acts very boldly based on the initial research xe finds; on the other hand the issue is very controversial and would continue to illicit such behavior by new users. - RoyBoy 800 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I would like to nitpick though with "theory unestablished in scientific consensus"; in my opinion "hypothesis" (rather than link or theory) in the title and "posits" in the intro sentence does exactly that. Perhaps it should/could be made clearer; difficult to not only strike the right balance but the right wording. - RoyBoy 800 06:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Possible RfC?
Hi Kyd. I wonder what you think of the possibility of putting an RfC together regarding Pro-Lick? I've never done one of those; have you? Would it be productive? I think he or she has decided that all of us at Abortion are somehow "bad guys", so maybe some broader community input would help. What do you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- A year working on that article, and never an RfC? You're a patient one. I'll take heart then, and give it a few more days. I'm open to suggestions on how to help Pro-Lick see that Wikipedia is... just not like that. It's frustrating -GTBacchus(talk) 06:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- In other news, another editor whom we considered for Rfc not once but three times has just emailed me stating that Pro-licks behavior has made them realize what an ass they were (their words not mine) and is now being much more civil on the talk page, following WP policies regarding RS and consensus, etc. So there is always hope. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Helping Verifiability
Please leave a note for GTB User_talk:GTBacchus#Sources.--Pro-Lick 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Abortion page
Sorry to hear you will not be editing there......I myself have become endlessly frustrated with the edit wars over the first sentence, and the endless debate (especially as so much of it seems to be getting petty) - I've found that if I break from the topic (I avoided the abortion page for nearly a month at one point), work on other projects, and then come back to it, I am able to maintain a better outlook. All the same, the page is getting really frustrating for me, as well - it led to my Wikipedia Disillusionment writeup..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaNobisPacem (talk • contribs) 06:04, 27 March 2006
|
The Epic Barnstar | |
| I RoyBoy award Severa this Barnstar in recognition of zer efforts on History of abortion; specifically for a merger that solidified an article that does Wikipedia proud! All the best. - RoyBoy 800 06:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
- I completely agree. Fantastic work on the article! You have done wikipedia a great service. Thank you for your time and efforts. They do not go unnoticed.--Andrew c 03:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Abortion poll
Please weigh in with your view on this abortion wikipedia poll. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Feedback please. - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Can We Come to An Agreement on Citing the Articles on the Abortion Page?
I think it's important that recent, fairly solid evidence on mental health consequences of abortion -- and evidence that goes against the grain of the APA report from a year ago -- should be cited in the abortion article. I am certainly in favor of presenting the articles in a way that is neither long-winded nor imbalanced. Rather than going back and forth deleting and re-posting stuff, it would be more productive to come to some agreement about how best to frame the material that all contributors can live with. Work with me, please. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brobbins (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 May 2006
Recent Abortion edit
Just wanted to point out that in your recent edit, you reverted a source (pertaining to this, but not the actual statement it was sourcing. --InShaneee 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Category:Aspergian Wikipedians
Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an page, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. FearÉIREANN
\
- As the standard template used for tag removal makes clear, their removal is vandalism and will be treated as such. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, no, it's not vandalism. You placed an excess number of tags, to the point where it interferes with the article, so a number of people have removed your error. Thank you for understanding. Al 05:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Jtdirl, every time you come up with an excuse to treat another good-faith editor's edits as vandalism, you're wrong. It's only vandalism if you're certain they're actually trying to make Wikipedia worse, period. You're an admin; you should know this. We correct newbies in this matter - it would be good if we all helped set the proper example. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You may want to check out George Tiller for POV issues. All of the content seems to be paraphrased from a pro-life cite, althought most of the strong POV language has been altered. I'm curious whether this person is notable enough to have an article, and why the majority of the article isn't about the person, but the clinic instead... thoughts? imput? much appreciated.--Andrew c 20:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Teenage pregnancy
Thanks for all the edits on this article. It reads much clearer and more "wikified" now. Also thanks for keping me honest by pointing out where citations were needed ;) I've added some extra refs. Just trying to make this a great article and particularly to expand beyond the UK/US focus. Fionah 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted abortion map
Well, I'm in the process of deleting all images in Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons. It looks like you didn't know that all images in this category are subject to deletion (because you yourself placed {{NowCommons}} tag and now ask me for my reasons for deletion). Let me explain.
When the same image is available on Wikipedia and Commons, the Wikipedia copy is redundant, because after its deletion the Commons is still visible. The Commons copy, on the other hand, can be used by other Wikimedia project (this is the very reason for Commons to exist). So instead of two images (one of which was out of date) there's only one image now, albeit under a different name.
Talking about discussion pages, nothing on Wikipedia is deleted permanently now. I have not deleted any discussion pages for this image. The only talk page I know about is now located at Image talk:AbortionLawsMap.png. If there is another one, it should be where it was before. Conscious 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
