|
User talk:Severa/archive2
AbortionYou 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|
Protection of AbortionI 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)
Abortion talkI 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)
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:
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)
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)
Helping VerifiabilityPlease leave a note for GTB User_talk:GTBacchus#Sources.--Pro-Lick 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Abortion pageSorry 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
Abortion pollPlease 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 editJust 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 WikipediansCategory: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
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 pregnancyThanks 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 mapWell, 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) |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
