User talk:Severa/archive8

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Crisis Pregnancy Center

I noticed that you recently replaced "category:abortion debate" with "category:pro-life movement", citing that this was a duplicate categorization (to have both). "Pro-life" definitely falls within "Abortion debate" hierarchically, but I don't think having both categories is redundant. People often surf articles based on category and the more applicable categories assigned to an article, the easier it is to find. While CPCs are clearly a tool of the Pro-life movement, they have become part of the larger debate and I think that the broader "abortion debate" category is appropriate.

Feel free to move this comment to the CPC talk page. I posted it here because I'm not sure if you are watching that page (Talk:Crisis Pregnancy Center is a bit stale and I sometimes receive no response to comments I have left there). Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I find linear categorization structures to be the most navigable. When a system is more open form, allowing for extensive cross-categorization, I find it can become circuitous, with categories and subcategories looping back on each other rather confusingly.

Cross-listing an article in two subcategories of the same parent category can also give a false impression of the overall number of articles that there are on a particular subject. If the categorization structure is "Category:Abortion -> Category:Abortion debate -> Category:Pro-life movement + Category:Pro-choice movement" then placing the article Crisis pregnancy center in both Category:Abortion debate and Category:Pro-life movement gives the impression that there are more Abortion debate-related articles than there actually exist. This is why I try to only list an article in two subcategories of Category:Abortion if two sufficiently different categories apply to the same topic (such as I'm Not Sorry.net in both Category:Abortion in media and Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States).

I don't feel that there is sufficient difference between Category:Abortion debate and Category:Pro-life movement to warrant listing Crisis pregnancy center in both. Yes, crisis pregnancy centres are debated on all sides, but, then, so is the Genocide Awareness Project. Both CPCs and the GAP are exclusively aspects of the pro-life movement. It's not like the Societal attitudes towards abortion, Libertarian perspectives on abortion, or Ethical aspects of abortion, which are clearly more generalized in their coverage . -Severa (!!!) 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. You have changed my mind. Although I don't think you'll have much luck with User:Photouploaded (stubborn). Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 14:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Accurate, but faulty assumption

You seem to imply in this edit that the closing of the community sanction noticeboard somehow spurred Ferrylodge to request arbitration. However, Ferrylodge had emailed me back on September 26 requesting any advice on how to proceed (acknowledging arbitration was a possibility), and acknowledged on October 3rd that he would probably be seeking arbitration "next week". The board wasn't even proposed to be deleted until the 6th, and wasn't tagged historical until the 11th. To assume the arbitration was based on the sanction board being shut down is faulty. If you feel up to it, it would be nice to rescind that part of your evidence. However, I won't hold it against you if you do not. Gracias and mahalo. --Ali'i 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not party to the same information that you are, but, from my vantage, it does look like a case of having waited until an opportune moment. I am able to form conclusions only from the evidence which is directly available to me. -Severa (!!!) 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I totally understand. I just thought I'd pop by and fill you in on some background that would clarify things for you. If it really mattered though, I suppose I would forward the emails to the ArbCom. Again, mahalo. --Ali'i 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Per forwarding e-mails, you would need to discuss that with Ferrylodge first, due to the identification terms outlined in the WaPo article. -Severa (!!!) 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. --Ali'i 21:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced comment

Hiya - just a quickie. You accidentally posted your comment for User:65.13.28.240 on their userpage rather than their talk page, so I've moved it across for you. Happy Friday! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the error. I must have clicked the wrong link somewhere. I usually don't watchlist pages on which I leave template messages. -Severa (!!!) 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion and abortion

Greetings. I noticed your (now outdated) interest in collaboration on this article. I've been adding to the Judaism section. Also put in a note on the Talk page. I'd welcome your feedback, if you happen to have a chance. in any case, take care, HG | Talk 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to you on Talk:Religion and abortion. As per the inactivity of the Article Improvement Drive of WikiProject Abortion, perhaps "Collaboration of the Month" would best be changed to something else, like "Collaboration Over a Period of Indeterminate Length." :-) -Severa (!!!) 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland

I'm on whole reluctant to blank out other poeples work, it's generally bad for morale, so thankyou for this edit [1], which was necessary, even if I was too cowardly to do it myself! Fasach Nua 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Online polls are not always unreliable, if they are conducted in a controlled manner, but the one in question appears to have been very informal. In the future, don't be afraid to remove content, if it does not satisfy policies like WP:RS, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV. The material can always be re-added to the article if it is modified in such a way as to make it compliant with the relevant policies. -Severa (!!!) 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Check out this talk page, and let me know if you spot something new. ;'D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm really glad to see this article finally getting the recognition it deserves. :-) -Severa (!!!) 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Debatepedia.org abortion link

• I'd put up an external link to the abortion debate page on Debatepedia. It's useful and seems appropriate, but was removed. -- Debaterx 20:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any special insight to offer on the matter of external links. Try proposing the link at Talk:Abortion debate, or else ask for advice at WP:EL, where someone with more knowledge of linking protocals on Wikipedia might be able to comment. -Severa (!!!) 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Advertising info on HoA

Hi, it took me longer to compose my explanation than I thought, so you probably saw the change to History of abortion and no discussion on the talk page, and switched it back. Rightfully so. I apologize, I should have posted to talk first. I have posted my (overly verbose) argument for switching the ad and Restell info on the talk page (it is mostly social commentary, and with the exception of the first intro paragraph, has no significant medical info regarding the development of abortion methodology, that and for the sake of the flow of the first section). I will wait for your response for further edits of this material, but in light of my argument and suggestions, I would ask that you explain your argument for keeping it in the medical info on the talk page.

I'm sorry for any confusion my late explanation may have caused. Thank you. Phyesalis 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and encouragement! I have suggested a compromise on HoA's talk page. (I forgot to sign.) Phyesalis 07:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments about incivility

Thanks for your comments. Please see my reply at [2]. Sbowers3 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu

I tried to make the exact same edit as you did here. Your edit summary was Rv redundant addition. This is already covered in the "Activities of Norma McCorvey" sub-section. while mine was rm redundant section. please see section titled "Activities of Norma McCorvey". also remember to cite your sources in the future. Your edit made it through before mine, so you beat me to the punch. I was quite confused looking at my watchlist at first because of the similarities in our edit summaries. Funny, no?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistically, if two editors make enough edits to the same range of articles, I'm sure there's bound to such a coincidence eventually. But, still, it's pretty odd for the wording in two different edit summaries to have come so close. Thanks for sharing. :) -Severa (!!!) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please weigh in on listing "Abortion" in Infertility

Photouploaded is contesting and reverting my addition of “Abortion” to the list of possible causes of infertility. Previously, she tried to add a contested tag. There is a "discussion" on the talk page: [3]. No other editors have expressed support or approbation, but no other editors are deleting "abortion" from the list. While Photouploaded was “Retired”, the edit stood without contest. Thanks!LCP (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

re:Oversight needed

Matters of ArbCom enforcement can be raised at WP:AE. Based on a request for clarification, found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.2FFerrylodge.23Ferrylodge restricted it was basically stated that FL was not currently restricted in anyway (contrary to the ArbCom ruling's wording), but COULD be banned from abortion/pregnancy related topics in the future if an uninvolved admin found him disruptive. Therefore, I believe FL has the confirmation to give him the green light to start editing those topics again (which explains his edits to Roe v. Wade). And unless the edits were found to be disruptive, I don't believe anyone can ban him simply for editing the article. That said, I have not read those edits yet, so I'm not sure if they were problematic or not. Hope this helps explain the situation, and the courses of action you can take if you feel there has been abuse. Thanks for contacting me, and it's good to hear from you, even if under these circumstances. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Abortion

I have reinstated a couple things you changed on abortion. Just wanted to drop a friendly note to say that I left discussions on the talk page. Good to see you back. Looking forward to working on History of Abortion with you. Phyesalis (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

recent edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Phyesalis (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)) Hi, I'm not saying you have violated OWN, but I thought it might be a useful reminder. You are the only one disputing the structure of Abortion. It is inappropriate a) to engage in mass reverts for things other than vandalism, b) to revert the work of multiple editors and c) to revert good faith edits in order to push a POV. I have asked you to discuss your disputation on talk, this is still an ongoing discussion. Please refrain from repeatedly reverting the material in the middle of a dispute. Precedent alone is not an argument. Please review WP:Revert and WP:Edit war. For what it's worth, I agree with you on photouploaded's edit. Perhaps you could provide some sources which contextualize fetal pain within general women's health considerations for abortion? Phyesalis (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 will be my third year on Wikipedia so I find it very inconsiderate that you have templated a regular. I also take exception to your above insinuation that I have "revert[ed] good faith edits in order to push a POV." Please focus on content, not the contributor, because the tone you have taken in the post above does little to advance the current disagreements on Abortion toward resolution. I have also replied to you on talk, as I noted very clearly in the edit summary of my reversion, and the fact that you reverted me without actually responding to any of those posts on talk — and now state "I have asked you to discuss your disputation" — suggests to me that you need to slow down and get a clear picture of the situation. I waited until after I had posted all of my rationales on talk to make my reversion. I would thus request that you follow your own advice and engage in discussion instead of simply reverting as you have already done. -Severa (!!!) 01:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I had not read about templating a regular. Now I know. Please believe me, I thought I was giving you a legitimate warning in attempt o forestall an edit war. Alas, I have failed miserably. Truly, it was not my intention to be inconsiderate, I'm sorry. I have stricken it, feel free tot remove it if you like. I would but I didn't think it was appropriate for me to make deletions on your page.

However, I do believe I'm within my rights to leave a civil and well-intentioned note on your talk page. I paid particular attention to what I addressed to you and what I left as a general statement. You did repeatedly revert material during a dispute. You do seem to be doing this in an effort to bring about a particular POV. "Push" wasn't the best choice of words. I did bring up the issue of POV in the article on the talk page, I'll stick to that. Sorry, I did stray from focusing on the content. It seems we have both missed the other's responses.

As for your suggestion that I "need to slow down", I disagree. The ABC material is a matter of consensus and commonsense (and I wasn't the only one re-establishing consensus). It should reflect the main article and has no relation to breast cancer. You dispute the placement of fetal pain, if we cannot come to an agreement we can either follow dispute resolution procedures or devolve into edit warring. I'd prefer coming to an agreement, but if not, I'd like to not to war. You are making lots of sweeping changes, many of which have been challenged, and reverting the work of multiple editors. With all due respect, I don't think I'm the one who needs to slow down.

As I suggested, perhaps you could provide some sources to support your argument for "fetal pain" being in a section that is otherwise about the woman's health. This would make the matter much less complicated. Phyesalis (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have in no way made "sweeping changes" to Abortion. I am, in fact, attempting to maintain the structure that has been in place for two years. Your reorganization was done under a month ago and without any discussion - let alone consensus for change — on talk. I also do not understand your request that I provide sources to explain why a structure that has been in place less than a month should not replace one that is two years old. If you wish to see a change made to long-established content, the burden of proof lies with you, not with those who disagree with your proposal.

I reverted you twice,[4][5] which is "repeatedly" only by a very loose definition of the word, and you reverted me twice yourself. [6][7] The point is that you did the exact same thing of which you accused me of having done in the post above ("repeatedly revert[ing] material during a dispute"). It's probably a good idea for one to check the level of ground that they are standing on before making these types of accusations. There is nothing helpful about a pot calling a kettle black.

I still do not know from where you are drawing the conclusion that I have "[edited] in an effort to bring about a particular POV", but, from the fact that people can't seem to agree exactly what POV I'm supposed to be pushing, I'll take it that I'm doing my job right in terms of NPOV. -Severa (!!!) 05:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This said, though, I do appreciate the apology for the template message, and the invitation to collaborate on History... which you posted in the section above (I probably won't have enough time until the new year). I've gone on to work well with users with who I've had disagreements (including RoyBoy, who, of all things, I had a disagreement over the ABC summary at Abortion). As for removing the template message, I think I've yet to fully excercise that right, as the only time I removed comments from my user talk page was when two users who had been posting to me here began a divergent discussion between themselves. -Severa (!!!) 05:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you reverted the entire article 4 times in 24 hr period (I wasn't sure if this amounted to a violation of WP:3RR, so I decided against a full-blown notice):

[[8]],[[9]], [[10]] and on your fourth revert, which you acknowledged in your edit summary as a "mass revert" you reverted 5 intermediate edits by two different editors [11]]. Reverting work spanning over a month, work that had already weathered one objection (rossnixon) by editorial consensus, in 4 reverts in a 24 hr period could be considered sweeping. Come on, I know you like your precedent ;), but it's not like I just did this yesterday.

Again, I truly didn't know about the template. Thank you for accepting my apology. I'm not going to have a whole lot of time until after the holidays myself. In a gesture of goodwill, is there any one (fairly simple) thing you'd like sourced (currently in article or missing), with regards to History of abortion? Pro-life, pro-choice, religious, social, or legal, doesn't matter. If I can't find something for it, I'll give you two footnoted citations as close to it as possible.

On the fetal pain issue, I have challenged the placement over issues here [[12]] and here [[13]]. You have not addressed these issues yet (I posted the last one recently, so I'm not trying to imply anything). I think it is reasonable that if you cannot rebut or reconcile these issues with something other than precedent, the precedent should be overturned. Does that sound fair? Also, if you happen to know off hand, could give me an idea about where discussion of the placement is in the archives? Maybe understanding the previous argument will cause me see it differently.

From your last edits, does this mean we have come to an agreement on the ABC section? If so, thank you (you know, WP says to thank people, and I don't mind, but the text always comes off as pompous, making me feel foolish so...) thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking back over the edit history, I realize that I too got a little overzealous in my reverting. Just thought it would be fair to point this out. Phyesalis (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In practice, 3RR is not usually judged by the sum total of reverts made by a single user on a specific article on a given day, but is instead determined by how many times a user reverts an edit made to a specific part of that article. The reverts to the "Fetal pain" and "Breast cancer" sections were independent of each other and so their tallies are also separate. If we count by single edits, then we are equal, at four reverts each.
Precedent is equal to consensus and that is how most editorial determinations are made on Wikipedia. Judges often determine cases by pointing to legal precedent without actually weighing in on the individual merits of a particular appeal. The point is that precedent stands regardless of whether a user's concerns are addressed to their satisfaction. Changes to articles go forward because the editor desiring the change makes a convincing case in support of their proposal — not because other users fail to make a convicing argument against their proposal. When it comes to graphic pictures at Abortion, we usually just point to precedent, rather than revisit the same debate that has been gone through so many times before. We'd probably have graphic pictures in the article by now if all it took for them to be added was that no one managed to personally convince the user who'd suggested them that they shouldn't be added. The only discussion I recall touching upon placement of the "Fetal pain" sub-section is Archive 13, "Fetal pain," although the section was discussed throughout Archives 13-17.
As for ABC, I ultimately don't think the main link is a big enough issue to pursue further, but I do wonder at the inconsistency between not linking Breast cancer under "Breast cancer" but linking Mental health under "Mental health." However, I do disagree with framing ABC as a "rejected theory" in the lead sentence of its sub-section, due to the fact similar edits in the past have been...ah...rejected. :-) I think that the opening sentence should simply introduce what the ABC hypothesis is about without involving any of the evidence or debate. I think it's okay to say it's "rejected" elsewhere in the section — though this would ideally be attributed to whatever body had done the rejecting — but just not in the very first sentence.
I'll have to consider your recent posts on Talk:Abortion and your offer regarding History... when I'm not so tired. -Severa (!!!) 08:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

First, take your time with the offer on HoA. If you want to wait until after the holidays to look over the article, I don't mind. I made the offer in a gesture of goodwill in an effort to ensure more harmonious editing. Looks like we'll be working on a number of articles together, and while I foresee us disagreeing on a number of things, I'd like to maintain a friendly atmosphere.

As for 3RR, you've been around longer, but WP:3RR states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." [emph. in original] But given that we both overstepped this, I'm not trying to get picky.

I understand your point about the parity of ABC and PAS links, but I would say this, while there is no more scientific support for PAS than there is for ABC, there is a relationship between abortion and mental health, independent of PAS. This is why I didn't remove the link under PAS. The rejected thing, lol, I'm glad we can share a little humor. I think that if editors can share a little mutually recognized and good-natured ribbing, it makes for a less tense environment. As for your point, I think current editorial consensus on Abortion and ABC is that "rejected" is an integral part of what it is (a bit more neutral than say "ABC is a pro-life myth based on bad science."), and that Abortion should reflect consensus of ABC, this has been "upheld" on both ABC and Abortion in the past month. But if you'd like to discuss this over on ABC, by all means, I'm not trying to discourage you from pursuing what you think is a legitimate issue (not saying it's not). It's an interesting point, I'd like to know what RoyBoy and MastCell think of it.

The fetal pain issue, I'd really appreciate it if you could look that over and respond at your earliest convenience. I know it's a busy time of year, I'm running out of time right now. So, until the next time, thanks! Phyesalis (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Severa, it's just you and me. It's not like anybody is jumping to support your argument. I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that it's just you and me, two editors disagreeing. I'm not sure what your point about precedent is. Would you mind pointing me toward this policy? There is no current consensus now. I understand that you seem to have worked on this article for a long time, but again, I'd like to gently remind you that no editor owns an article, and that all are free to be bold and change it. When you revert the text without discussing the issues with the citations, it's very discouraging. It seems as if you have already judged this, by yourself. Should we ask for a third, disinterested, opinion? Phyesalis (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Arbitration enforcement

(I see Thatcher131's post below, but, in all fairness, I was working on this comment before Thatcher131 posted his request, I've chopped off about three paragraphs, and it dovetails with what Andrew c had to say above).
It's not just edits to articles that are a concern as civility was another focus of the ArbCom case. Earlier today, Y jumped into a discussion over the Roe edit on Ferrylodge's user talk, asking, "Are you making trouble again?" To which Ferrylodge replied, "Someone is." Y certainly could have phrased his question better, but Ferrylodge's response was uncivil, although I'm not sure to who it was directed (Me? Andrew c? Y?). Then there was this comment, in which Ferrylodge said Andrew c had "request[ed] earlier today that I [Ferrylodge] be banned due to talk page comments", although Andrew c's initial post on this page expressed far broader reasons for concern than just "talk page comments" and never actually requested that Ferrylodge be "banned," as in from Wikipedia itself, only that an "uninvolved admin...ban him from the article, per the ArbCom ruling". -Severa (!!!) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-Identity

Interesting; while I disagree that the term "Anti-choice" is not a NPOV I was unaware of the standard of using a groups form of self-identity - thank you for the link. 71.234.131.9 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and I'm glad the link I provided was helpful. If "anti-choice" were understood strictly as a term which contrasted directly to "pro-choice" (everything that has a "pro-" has an "anti-"), then, yes, I suppose it would be neutral, but the fact is that the word carries with it the same sort of negative connotations as "anti-life." "Anti-choice" implies "pro-oppression" whereas "anti-life" implies "pro-death." The simplest solution we've found on abortion-related articles is to opt for the terminology which each movement uses to describe itself. -Severa (!!!) 07:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Abortion page

Hiya Severa. Looks like things are heating up on the Abortion page. Let's talk it out on the discussion page. I'm sure we can all come to an understanding. All of the editing is happening too quickly. Hope to see you on the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the cool down warning. I agree that things are getting pretty heated, but I've tried to explain myself clearly on talk at every step along the way, and I guess Photouploaded and I just haven't been able to meet in the middle. It's a busy time of year and I guess I'm a little more distracted from articles than I would be normally (I'm trying to wrap gifts in between editing articles in between taking care of other things!). -Severa (!!!) 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)