User talk:IronAngelAlice/Archive index

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, IronAngelAlice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Enjoy your Wikipedia experience!

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  —Dabomb87 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Abortion

Hi, I do not know what exactly is the situation going on at the abortion page, but I agree with Andrew C's proposal to put the positive and the negative effects in context. Abortion is a surgical procedure--one of the safest--but it always will have side effects. Btw, I advise you against forum-shopping. Not that it's not allowed--but it's kind of disputed. Depends on the situation mirageinred 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Mirageinred. I was careful to ask everyone who was involved in the conversation (from both sides of the debate) to comment on the proposal. There is so much going on within the talk page, that I thought I should draw some attention to the "mental health" segment. I wasn't trying to illicit a specific kind of advice. --IronAngelAlice 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I came here to mention the same thing. Be careful to adhere to the canvassing guideline. Don't worry, though: I don't think you're not going overboard or anything, but I thought I should give a quick heads up as just a helpful hint in case you didn't know about the whole canvassing thinggymabobber. :P Anyway, thanks for helping to make the site a better place, and cheers. =) --slakr\ talk / 09:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sklar. Again, I was very careful to let those who were already involved in the conversation (pro-life, pro-choice and neutral) know that there was a new proposal. I didn't want to influence the conversation in a specific way - I want the current paragraph to be as neutral as humanly possible (which is why I wanted to get feedback by as many people as possible). --IronAngelAlice 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Joel Brind

Why isn't he a scientific advocate? - RoyBoy 800 02:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oh! Mostly that sentence was just bad grammar. What someone was trying to say is that Joel Brind is a scientist and an advocate for the ABC hypothesis - not that he is an advocate for science in general.--IronAngelAlice 02:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Harry Reid. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiptoety (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did to Harry Reid. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. Tiptoety (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Harry Reid, you will be blocked from editing. Tiptoety (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't call this removing content, than i am not sure what you do. Also vandalism warns do not constitue spamming. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I then added that back to a different section. PLease see the talk page. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was the result of a complete misunderstanding. It was resolved amicably.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" items in Feminazi

It is against the Manual of Style's recommendations to put a "See also" link to an article which is already wikilinked in the body of the article. That's why I removed most of those. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No big; please self-revert, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to misandry

Thanks for contributing to this article, which has been subject to terrible POV edit warring for as long as I have watched it. I have given up hope that it will become encyclopedic in my lifetime, but I look forward to any improvements. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collocation of templates

Hello IronAngelAlice, I've seen you copyedit some articles and tag statements which need a reliable source. Well done. It's more handy to use {{subst:Fact-now}} and {{refimprove|date={{subst:DATE}}}} instead. On my user page I have collocated some more templates. --mms (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreading the article Antifeminism

Dear IronAngelAlice, I reverted your revert in the article Antifeminism. This sentence was in the article before you began to edit. I'm unable to be more specific as I haven't read the book and I'm not very knowing in this field. It is supposed that the two authors cited argue for this understanding. --mms (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


your vandalizing the HPV Page=

YOu have no expertise on the HPV other than a feminist agenda and nonsense. You need to stop vandalizing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.0.2 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This user was blocked for vandalism.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Fetus

At WP:AN3, someone noted that you might be getting close to violating the three-revert rule. Please be careful. -- tariqabjotu 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to what that was about (?)...--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it is you did not understand. It seems rather self-explanatory. -- tariqabjotu 05:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Abortion

Nice work on the recent edits. I like how you brought all the disparate bits on unsafe abortion together in a cohesive section. Phyesalis (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fetal pain

The fetal pain 'summary of overview' seems a little redundant to me anyway. (Do we really need a summary of the overview of an article?) I primarily objected to the idea that an editor would delete information simply because the editor couldn't be bothered to look for the refs. (In a summary, where by definition the information is already elsewhere in the article!)

Fetal pain is on my watchlist primarily for obvious vandalism and I have no interest in working on it. However, I thought your summary "furthermore, fetus has an instinctual response not a response to pain" indicates a strong POV. The major point about this issue is that different people have different views about what constitutes pain. According to your personal definition of pain, withdrawal from a needlestick isn't sufficient to constitute pain. That's fine. However, other people have very different ideas of what it means to experience pain, and their views are at least as valid as your view and my view.

The history of these perceptions is important: during my lifetime, major surgery was done without anesthesia on neonates on the grounds that they didn't "really"understand/experience/get harmed by the pain (and therefore the risks of anesthesia weren't justified). Similar arguments have been made (and not just by mad scientists under the Nazis) about people with advanced dementia or disabilities. We can all understand why a person who saw a three-day-old newborn weeping, screaming, sweating, and struggling in apparent agony during a surgery would have less trust in "scientific views" about what's "really" pain.

I don't have any interest in being involved in regular editing of the fetal pain article. However, I'd like you to consider how much your personal POV was involved in your recent decision to delete information. If you think it was significant (even if not overwhelming), then perhaps you would consider neutrally rephrasing that sentence, instead of deleting facts that you don't happen to agree with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that not every study should be included, and that a general summary should suffice. Please be aware that I deleted a sentence that did not have scientific merit. I have no interest in the political debate. The sentence I deleted said this: "Early in development, from about 12-18 weeks gestation, there is a complete link from the periphery to the thalamus in the brain, and the fetus shows clear evidence of defensive reactions against tissue damage including hormonal and hemodynamic responses."
This sentence insinuates that fetal pain can occur in the 12th week, which is clearly editorializing because the study cited concludes: "Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age…" --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus" is a POV -- a point of view endorsed by many researchers, but still a point of view. Not everyone has that POV. I think it would be better to rephrase the sentence to indicate the undisputed facts: a fetus at 12-18 weeks gestation has a certain level of neurological development and some verified physical responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However it is not my POV. It is an expert POV backed up by research. That's called science (or at least scientific discourse). --IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and Judaism

Greetings. Glad to see your energetic work. I saw that you made some changes/deletions in the Judaism section. I tried to be responsive and put back some of the material, as I thought necessary. In my edit summary, i asked if you (or whoever) would kindly take this to Talk if you disagree. However, you basically reverted my edit without any edit summary. Would you mind discussing these points more in article Talk. Thanks, pls reply there or to my Talk. Best wishes, HG | Talk 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I identified and discussed the disputed points at Talk:Religion and abortion. Be well, HG | Talk 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life terminology

Hey, I'm not sure how I feel about a WP-wide shift from "Pro-life" to "anti-abortion", but I'd really be up for a comprehensive discussion of it on Talk:Abortion or WP:WikiProject Abortion. I agree that within abortion-specific articles, "anti-abortion" is more accurate and less POV. Phyesalis (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and mental health

Hey! I just wanted to drop in and let you know, I thought that the changes over there were made a bit quickly, as evidenced by the tension. I can understand your frustration. Given the pace of change, I think people got some lines crossed and we're not taking time to allow for consensus to develop (I think consensus is a process, not necessarily the outcome of an initial poll/vote). I mean, we've heard very little from Strider. You've got a number of valid points, and I think we should discuss them. This would be easier if everybody involved stopped reverting the article and spent some time in substantive discussion. I'm going to post something over there to that effect. I also left a note over at Equazcion's about discussing editorial approaches off-article. Hope this helps! Phyesalis (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, my pleasure. I think once people start making comments like this and comparing one editor to another in disparaging ways, GF has temporarily left the building, and then it's just time to just cool out. Phyesalis (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey we're both trying to edit the same stuff but in different ways, do you have IRC? Phyesalis (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis‎

I've created a request for mediation. Please list there if you agree or disagree to participate. If you want to discuss/expand on anything related to it, please put it on the talk page. - RoyBoy 800 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2001/1-2/2001-1-18.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There is a quote that comes from that page, and is attributed to Hinduism Today. That's why there is "a substantial copy."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fetus pictures

I understand your concern about the pictures, but it's obvious to me that you didn't look at the new ones before you reverted. Despite the file names, they are black and white images. The images were submitted to WP:GL/IMPROVE to remove the JPEG compression artifacts. I understand how you could be confused, and I will have them uploaded under less misleading file names. Please do not revert next time. Edit warring is not part of my bot's task, and I don't engage in it anyway. I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation)

I have nominated Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow Wadhamite!

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Yes I was at Wadham, though a little earlier than you - 1979-1982, as a law student (who spent way too much time on the river).--ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Alice, please cease edit warring in the Crisis Pregnancy Centers article. You have repeatedly inserted the same unsourced, poorly-sourced, and demonstrably false information to bash CPCs, and deleted balancing information. On Wikipedia, that is called disruptive editing. Some of the errors have been pointed out on the Talk page, but you ignore that and just reinsert the information, without participating meaningfully in the Talk page discussion. Please stop it. NCdave (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1) I have only reverted your text once on that page today.
2) I have been replacing non-reliable sources (ex: from the National Right to Life Committee) with reliable sources (ex. from Congressional testimony) per Wikipedia's reliable sources document
3) I have sourced everything I added
4) I have been using the talk pages religiously
NCdave, please don't tag the regulars with meaningless criticisms you've copied from elsewhere and pasted here.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alice, what are you talking about? I didn't copy/paste anything. You've reverted three times today (more if you count consecutive edits), and you've ignored the specific complaints about the inaccuracies you've introduced, such as your insertion of the false claim that most CPC funding comes from the Bush Administration's Faith-based initiatives, and your sourcing is mostly political polemics from anti-CPC sources, like Rep. Waxman. Please discuss proposed controversial changes to the article on the Talk page before making them. There's no need for your edit warring. Let's work together to make this a better article. Please? NCdave (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific complaints come only from you. I have not re-added the text AndrewC and I disagree about. Please don't over-dramatize. Please stop spamming my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that your 3RR violation has been reported on the 3RR noticeboard. NCdave (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 reverts happened over 2 days. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, IronAngelAlice. I didn't want to make Talk: Abortion and mental health focused on you, the editor, so I decided to comment on my own talk page instead. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comment was longer than I expected it to be. You can check it now. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

If you think you may have gone over 3RR (I'm not sure, I've not looked at all of the diffs), then the best approach by far is to voluntarily self-revert and undo your last set of edits. MastCell Talk 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting disputed changes

Per: Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Shun Ferrylodge

Hello Alice. I hope you don't mind me showing up here to chat a little bit.

I'm just sick and tired of all this crap. In fact, I'm sick and tired of all this crap! I'm moving to Ireland. **Grumble** And for good measure, I suggest a "Megaruling Co." Measuring Tape. They tend to take pretty good measurements.


Talk:Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis#Disputed_status

I would like your input on removing the Disputed banner. I'm planning to resubmit for GA review in mid-April. - RoyBoy 800 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yet another inaccurate 3R warning by NCdave

Yet another inaccurate 3R warning by NCdave

Alice, you have done 11 reverts on Abortion and mental health, in less than five hours, all of them promoting a particular POV, plus several additional edits during that same time period which also promoted that same POV. You've violated WP:NPOV, and the only reason that you are not again[1] in violation of WP:3RR is that many of your reverts were consecutive. If you revert again, you will be in clear violation of WP:3RR. Please cease edit-warring, and please read WP:NPOV.

For your convenience, here are diffs showing your 11 reverts:

First group of consecutive reverts:

No. 1. 16:42, 19 March 2008 diff: [2] (reinserted opening claim that the abortion/mental health relationship is an area "of political controversy, but of little scientific controversy" from this earlier version: [3], and reverted several other changes)
Additional consecutive reverts:
No. 2. 16:43, 19 March 2008 diff: [4] (reinserted description of Coleman as "a pro-life activist")
No. 3. 16:48, 19 March 2008 diff: [5] (blanked an entire section, including Washington Post reference)
No. 4. 16:54, 19 March 2008 diff: [6] (deleted this: According to The Times, the Royal College warned that "women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions" and that "women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.")
No. 5. 17:00, 19 March 2008 diff:[7] (deleted Royal College stmt: "The specific issue of whether or not induced abortion has harmful effects on women’s mental health remains to be fully resolved. The current research evidence base is inconclusive—some studies indicate no evidence of harm, whilst other studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion.")
No. 6. 17:52, 19 March 2008 diff: [8] (Deleted "In light of additional studies undertaken since that time," and mischaracterized it in the edit summary as "deleting editorialization")
(and several other edits, all pushing the POV that abortion has no adverse mental health consequences)

Second:

No. 7. 19:51, 19 March 2008 diff: [9] (blanked an entire section)

Third:

No. 8. 21:51, 19 March 2008 diff: [10] (again deleted "Studies have reached conflicting conclusions on the question of whether abortion has a harmful effect on womens' mental health.")
No. 9. 21:53, 19 March 2008 diff: [11] (again deleted "In light of additional studies undertaken since that time")
No. 10. 21:57, 19 March 2008 diff: [12] (again deleted: According to The Times, the Royal College warned that "women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions" and that "women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.)
No. 11. 22:04, 19 March 2008 diff: [13] (again changed caption from "Royal College of Psychiatrists" to "A call for more research")

NCdave (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAPS

Hi - did you take a look at my talk page post before reverting? My point on the talk page was the the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons is not a particularly reliable source. It's also unclear from the text what relationship the 15 members who said something back in 2006 have to the current statement from the RCP. Just thought I'd check in. MastCell Talk 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put a response on MastCell's page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shun Strider12

Is really IronAngelAlice?

I was researching a past posting I made at User talk:[14] and found below it this posting from Coela indicating that 131.216.41.16 was your account. Is this correct?--Strider12 (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IronAngelAlice
Let me suggest that you log in as User:IronAngelAlice, and read our policies, especially WP:3RR and WP:SOCK, which you were previously blocked for. The block on your account has expired, and it would be best if you log in to that account to do further editing, so there is no ambiguity. If you don't engage in further sockpuppeteering, we can take down the big ugly "sockpuppet" banner on the IronAngelAlice account. I am an administrator. Feel free to contact me at user talk:coelacan or special:emailuser/coelacan if you have any questions. ··coelacan 11:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom proceeding

Please be aware that restrictions upon your editing are now being considered by the Arbitration Committee, as are restrictions upon the editing of Strider12. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't think this ever came to anything. Just more bullying by Ferrylodge.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it didn't come to anything (it was about edit-warring I think) - I can hardly remember it myself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Domestic violence, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did note my changes in the edit summary. On the Domestic Violence page specifically, I noted several unreliable sources. Since I noted my changes in the edit summary, I will reverse your reverse. We can chat about this further in the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and Intelligence

Hello.

I've had to undo many of the recent changes you have done to this page, including one very broad reversion undertaken without appropriate reason. It is becoming apparent from various reports and sources that you are: (a) editing various similarly-themed pages with a clear personal agenda (b) making numerous unjustified edits with sophistic/improper rationale (c) behaving erratically and unpredictably (d) demonstrate differential/inconsistent opinion of what constitutes "scientific" or "study" data to support your personal views.

Please refrain from making further changes to this page, and many others, for the above reasons. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.250.149 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have no idea who you are or why you are making these claims. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check effects on references when deleting

Hi. Just a quick note about some of your cleanup on the Gardasil article. When deleting a chunk of text containing references, please be sure to check whether the references are used elsewhere in the article, and copy the reference to somewhere else where it is used. (e.g. check the references section at the end of the article for new red items). I just fixed some of the references that were broken, but thought worth dropping a quick reminder. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Misandry. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm far from new at Wikipedia. And I gave my reasons for deletion in the edit summary. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What reason am I supposed to get out of "Undid revision 233064848 by JCDenton2052 (talk)"? JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, can you not see the 5-6 summaries I wrote in the history of the article? They are about 1-2 sentences each and are quite clear.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and intelligence

I undid your change described as "SAT scores: This is no longer accurate information - see New York Times article" because the information is still accurate, albeit incomplete. I have a copy of the original research article (a better source than the NYT review, IMHO) and will be updating the page sometime soon. Many of the reviews (though not the NYT one) seem to think that the research backs up the claims of a wider distribution of IQ scores for men vs. women, although the original article in fact concludes the opposite (that the differences in distribution are minor and contradictory depending on the ethnic groups sampled.) Good work updating the page with your other edits! --Sapphic (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Women's Forum

I reverted your edits to Independent Women's Forum, which is listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles, because they removed sourced information and seemed to introduce a POV problem without being accompanied by edit summaries about why these changes might be beneficial to the article. I would invite you to discuss this at Talk:Independent Women's Forum. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IWF

I've returned to our discussion at Talk:Independent Women's Forum. Thanks for your patience. The new semester started last week and I've been pretty tied up. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cervical dysplasia in HPV vaccine article

Rather than continually adding material about cervical dysplasia and treatment to the lead of the HPV vaccine article, please join in the discussion about the appropriateness of this material on talk:HPV vaccine#Cervical dysplasia in lead. Several of your recent edits about dysplasia are dubious at best, please discuss, rather than repeatedly removing correct information and continuing to edit without discussing when people have raised questions about the appropriateness of the material for the lead. (e.g. WP:BRD) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that isn't fair Zodon. You just started using the talk page to discuss dysplasia, you often add material with out discussing it in the talk page first (which isn't always necessary), and didn't delete anything that was already there. Also, everything I added was sourced with reputable sources.
I've responded to your concerns in the talk page.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider unfair? I edited HPV vaccine on the 24th August, removing the material about dysplasia from the lead, you put the material back, with the edit summary (adding back information about dysplasia) . At that point I posted the item on the talk page about cervical dysplasia in the lead, explaining why I think it is not appropriate for the lead of this article. Over the two days following my posting the item on the talk page you continued editing the dysplasia material, expanding it and removing some corrections to material, without responding to the discussion until I posted the above note on your talk page on the 26th. Certainly one might have missed a call to discuss material on the talk page, but how is it unfair to post the material, wait two days for a response while you are actively editing the page, and then draw your attention to that discussion? If you think something is unfair, please clarify.
On the other hand, once you were notified of the mater being under discussion and despite notes in the edit summaries that some of your recent changes damaged references and introduced questionable material, you have reasserted those changes that have been questioned. Please see WP:BRD and discuss to find out what the problems are and try to reach consensus, rather than just reasserting material that has been questioned. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to read WP:BRD, and your tone is becoming increasingly condescending. I have engaged the talk page and the edit summaries. I have sourced everything I've added to the page with reliable sources. There is no reason to remove the information. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Abortion

Why did you revert this edit here?[15] Please explain edits, especially reverts, especially in controversial articles such as this one.

--Tznkai (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The original source for that section is ReligiousTolerance.org. A site that is increasingly being used by journalists because it is known for accuracy (NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, etc). ReligiousTolerance has an accurate depiction of the history of Roman Catholic thought on abortion. The ref to RT was deleted and replaced by a more biased/revisionist source. I, therefore, reverted it back to RT. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solanas vs. Radical feminism

Better to discuss than to edit war.

I never liked seeing Solanas represent radical feminism, and didn't look forward to her inclusion in Misandry, but SCUM is given a chapter in Sisterhood Is Powerful, and praised by Alice Echols. I think it's in the canon.

Also, since the article generously states Solanas was a schizophrenic, I think her actions and some of the extremity of her statement can not be presumed representative of radical feminism by reasonable readers. What do you think? / edg ☺ ☭ 12:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Solanas was not part of a Radical Feminist movement, and she was not considered a radical feminist by her radical feminist peers. Why not simply leave it out that phrase as too controversial? She's listed under pop-feminism already.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello IronAngelAlice/Archive index, thank you for your contributions on articles related to Feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Feminism Task Force, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with gender studies related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the Feminism Task Force page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks!

--Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 01:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my talk comments?? - Good Critique of McElroy et all

I'm not a big fan of sommers or mcelroy and working on the article to make it clear their real relevance to libertarian feminism (corrupting influence if I can prove it). That's why I'm asking for actual proof, not defacto WP:original research about their specific views. However, I'm right now reading a really good article called Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved? by a couple of guys which shows how much feminst theories and libertarian theories about male/state violence are similar. They sound like Sonia Johnson whose article I beefed up a while back. It totally undermines McElroy's gender feminism nonsense from a libertarian perspective; they call her on her unnecessary attacks on feminists. Unfortunately it is not technically a WP:RS article so far that I can find, so I'm going to try to get them to hurry up and get it published somewhere! Promoting an alternate lib/individualist feminist view best way to deal with these people and their propaganda. Will hopefully find more sources like this too. Answer me here so we can keep messages together. Thanks. Carol Moore 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Chrisina Hoff Sommers: BLP violation

IronAngelAlice: I have reverted your edits to Christina Hoff Sommers, because I consider them a BLP violation. If you disagree, then discuss on the talk page. Reverting me without discussion will get you nowhere. I am also going to undo your changes to Feminism; the same remark applies there. Skoojal (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your not replying to an article's talk page makes it difficult for other editors to support your changes, to whatever extent they agree with them. Carol Moore 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I did respond on the talk page. Please do not over-react.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, somehow missed it. Carol Moore 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Removing my comments from Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

IronAngelAlice: you recently removed some of my comments from Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. If that was accidental, it was very sloppy of you. Please be more careful in future. If it was deliberate, then it was vandalism, and annoying and provocative vandalism at that. I reverted the talk page to the way it was before your removal of my comments. I apologize for using the term "reverting vandalism" to describe this change if that description of your edit was unjustified, but not otherwise. Skoojal (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Skoojal, you removed my comments on the Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers page. This may be a case of edit conflict.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated BLP violation on Christina Hoff Sommers

IronAngelAlice, your recent edits to Christina Hoff Sommers amount to BLP violation. The Advocates website is not a reliable source, and cannot be used. I have reverted your edits, and made it totally clear that I intend to continue doing this. Skoojal (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no BLP violation. Stop bullying. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are guilty of BLP violation, at the least, because of your repeated reinsertion of a non-reliable source, the Advocates website. Stop doing that, and stop making accusations of bullying. Skoojal (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one in the discussion page agrees with you, Skoojal.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About what? About the BLP violation? I'm not sure that anyone has expressed an opinion either way, actually. Skoojal (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you just don't read the discussion page carefully? People disagreed with your BLP violation accusations on the BLP notice board:
and at the end of this session in the discussion page:
and here:
You are just simply trying to bully your way through, not have a serious discussion...--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Abortion

I reverted the change you made in the Religion and abortion article where you deleted some information from the Buddhism section. The BBC reference is not unreliable, nor is it inaccurate in summarizing the traditional position of Buddhists on the matter. The Pew center is likewise a widely recognize source of information about religious practice. I can't see any justification for deleting the information that they were providing. Likewise, I question why you deleted the section on the views of the Roman Catholic Church (which were referenced by the RCC catechism, which is appropriate for referencing the views of this particular sect) but left sections on other denominations intact. Could you explain your reasoning? --Clay Collier (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the term Church teaching just means the positions taken by various Catholic leaders, especially Popes, Cardinals and Archbishops, on various issues. Please note that the mode of Catholic decision-making on social issues is not based on things like the texts of the Bible, early theology, modern science, the women's rights movement or representative democracy, but that it works a lot like a conservative political party, which has a President and a College of public representatives, who each have to try to build a consensus. Their views are their own and not anyone else's. ADM (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV edits to Christianity and abortion

You are now working against two editors--and you continue to claim "consensus" supports your view. You claim to be making NPOV edits, but it is well known that you are a pro-choice partisan; and that would be fine--except you have been accused--on your own Talk page--of POV by several editors. You have also called a scholarly text "unreliable" that has been being used as a source in the article for some time--since long before I showed up on the scene. In its place, you tried to use a text by Catholics for Free Choice, an organization whose raison d'etre is to oppose the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium on the matters of abortion and contraception. Finally, you have completely ignored my invitations to dialog on the Talk page. Please, IronAngelAlice, bring your thoughts to the Talk page.LCP (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am not going to respond to these baseless accusations. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning - August 2009

Yet another inaccurate 3R warning

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Christianity and abortion, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you.--StormRider 01:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten me. There was no 3RR. There was however, an editing conflict.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on Feminazi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that neither of you read my message at the edit warring noticeboard, where I gave multiple links to avenues for dispute resolution. Both of you need to stick to the talkpage and seek dispute resolution, rather than continuing to edit war. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Soxwon's Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soxwon We *have* hammered out a compromise.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that message already, but I see no evidence of a compromise. You two were still reverting each other up to right before I blocked you (Soxwon had done a revert less than 60 seconds before I blocked him), and your latest message at the article talk page ended with "Were you just trying to send me on a wild goose chase", which doesn't sound like you guys have reached an agreement on anything. You have 24 hours to think about things and then once you come back you can follow the proper avenues of dispute resolution. If you believe this block was made in error and you want it to be reviewed, you can follow the instructions in the box. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was just in the process of reverting myself when I couldn't edit anymore. I was going to remove the Katha Pollitt reference. We also added information regarding Limbaugh's use of the word to refer to those as "pro-choice." --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Soxwon and I were just in the process of hammering out a compromise when we were blocked! In addition, I repeatedly used the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Feminazi#The_crux I also added the {{3O}} to the top of the page Last, I added a request for dispute resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/media/manual --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

You may have posted messages for dispute resolution, but you kept on edit warring in the meantime—posting the request for resolution is only half of ending the war, the other half is controlling yourself. Both of you had already been warned about edit warring by multiple editors; you should have known better. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie-dokie. I was under the impression that we were working together - not happily, but there were compromises none-the-less.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

War declared over.

Request handled by: jpgordon::==( o ) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I apologize as well. Cheers!

Soxwon (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj to all. 



Soxwon (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning September 2009

You have reverted 4 times today on Feminazi, I ask that you revert your last edit. Soxwon (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported at 3RR. Soxwon (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Feminazi. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]