User talk:70.28.40.126

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Your edits to Abortion in Canada are biased and destructive, to the point where they qualify as vandalism. Please stop trying to insert this bias, so I can stop reverting each of your attempts. Thank you. Al 23:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Abortion in Canada, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. romarin[talk to her ] 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. Instead of giving you another warning, as it seems as though you are genuinely trying to contribute to Wikipedia, I thought I should leave you a note with some information that may help you out in the future. The changes you have been making to Abortion in Canada are considered to be describing a point of view, and will continue to be reverted. Please see WP:NOT for information on what Wikipedia is not, and for an overview of what Wikipedia is, check out WP:5P. If you continue to make edits as you have been, they will most likely be seen as vandalism and you may be blocked from further editing. If you have ideas that you would like to incorporate into an article, but are unsure as to whether or not they are considered POV, the best thing would be to write about them in that article's talk page (for instance, Talk:Abortion in Canada) and other editors will help you out. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions. Good luck! romarin[talk to her ] 03:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is how you use the talk feature but here it goes. My post recently has been the following.:

Many in this movement question the legitimacy of using public money to perform what is called a "personal decision" that others, including the state, should have no involvement in. They argue that the state should seek to promote the prosperity of its society, and provide increased funding for serious life threatening diseases such are cancer, instead of assisting abortions.

The standards for the website say as follows:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view.

The post above clearly does not do this. I have not stated that this is the right position. It is certainly more acceptable than the following post that I found in the article under Politics in paragraph 3:

Former Prime Minister and Liberal leader Paul Martin has indicated he would protect a woman's right to choose, but to what degree he would go in forcing his party to do so is not clear.

This statement is not neutral in the least. Were it neutral, a woman's right to choose should be in quotations as something that Paul Martin said, or should be reworded to say protect access to abortion.

Also, in the History section in paragraph five. I capitalized the p in parliament and it was changed back to a small p. This is an error. Parliament in Canada uses the capital P spelling. It is meant to refer to our specific federal institution of Parliament. This is similar to how Congress in the United States uses a capital c as opposed to a small c. We have no other institution that spells Parliament with a capital P in Canada. I can hardly see how you can classify that as vandalism or opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidude54 (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.28.40.126.html"