User talk:Edwardandrewlane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Hello, Edwardandrewlane, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: The Five Pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Editing tutorial Picture tutorial How to write a great article Naming conventions Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

--ΜιĿːtalk 10:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion / ethics

Hi Edward. Thanks for your note. There are several reasons why an article added to Wikipedia would be nominated for a discussion about its validity in our Articles for Deletion (AfD) process. The reasons are discussed in our deletion policy.

In all cases, the process of referring an article to AfD does not automatically mean it will be deleted. It is being discussed, that's all, and the possible outcomes include deletion, merger with another article, clean-up or keep. We attempt to reach a consensus on this over a few days. Please note that it is not a vote: it is a discussion.

Your article was originally nominated for a speedy delete, but just failed to qualify for the three criteria for speedy deletion it was nominated under. Therefore it was put to the AfD process.

There are a number of problems with the article as I see it. First, as a signed article it very much appears to be Original Research. There are no sources cited, which further suggests that.

It is also something of a duplicate article. We have several articles about abortion - Abortion, Abortion by country, Partial-birth abortion, Religion and abortion, Self-induced abortion and Libertarian perspectives on abortion. Your points are all discussed in detail in all of these articles, complete with citations and references.

Another problem is that the article works its way into a point of view, specifically plugging NLT and the views thereof.

All in all, it's really something of a square peg in Wikipedia's round hole.

Here's the standard welcome message we send out to new users. It contains lots of useful links that will give you more idea of what Wikipedia is and how to write an article in our house style.

[edit] Welcome, Edwardandrewlane!

➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Fair enough, I accept that it's not a copyright violation. In general when an article on here is so poorly formatted that it's obvious that someone has simply cut and pasted it from elsewhere, it turns out that someone has simply lifted it from a website. Not so in your case. It remains, however, Original Research in Wikipedia terms. I recommend you to take a look at the links Redvers has cited; also WP:NOT which lists the reasons why something may not be suitable for Wikipedia, and specifically the links defining OR. Regards. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article and its future

Hi Edward! HappyCamper and I have come up with an interesting solution for your article.

We've moved it to a page in your user space - User:Edwardandrewlane/Sandbox and closed the AfD on it. That means it's no longer in the main article space, but it won't now be deleted.

So here's what you need to do! Continue to polish the article at the new location. Remember to add:

• Wikilinks (make words that link to good articles link to them - use [[ and ]] around them, so that, say, embryo links to embryo. You can make words link to other subjects [[embryo|like this]] which produces the words like this linked to embryo... like this.
• Citations. In the research you did for your original Powerpoint presentation, you will have looked up books and articles. Find those notes and make sure that you list them in a References section at the foot of the article. If you're feeling ambitious, have a read of our pages about in-text citations - Harvard style and footnotes - and try doing one of those.

When you reckon the article is as good as it'll ever be, drop me and HappyCamper a line. We'll peer review it for you and then arrange to move it back into the article space.

Whilst you're doing this, don't forget that both of us are always ready and willing to help out with the article. If you've got questions (technical Wiki ones or general style ones) drop either of us a line and we'll help out straight away.

I hope this helps and you approve of this plan. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hi Edward! Right, I've been into the article and have made some changes. (If you need anything from the old article, you can find it here).

I've removed a couple of sections. Because Wikipedia is not paper, we don't need to define terms. Instead, people can click a word they don't understand and visit the article about it.

The section on UK law had to go - our readers are from the entire world, quite literally, so UK law applies to a tiny minority of them.

The rest of the changes are stylistic, making the article conform to our manual of style - it's all headings and such like. I've also added it to the correct categories.

Take a look at the results (and note the likely title of the piece - Ethical aspects of abortion) and let me know that you're happy with it. Of course, make any more changes you may want to make.

Then we can arrange for the article to go back into the main namespace, once you're happy.

When that happens, the article will, of course, attract many other editors and will change out of all recognition. But that's what a Wiki is about! The subject you've chosen is a contentious one, especially amongst the American editors here, so you may see some fighting over it. My advice is to stay as uninvolved as possible - let others do the edit warring; you can rest assured that admins will step in and sort the problem without you being dragged in.

I hope this helps. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the article is now in the main namespace at Ethical aspects of abortion. You can put it on your watchlist by clicking on the option at the top of that page (or, shortcut: click here). That way you'll be notified of any changes to the article on the page Special:Watchlist (top right of your screen).

I've left your Sandbox with a redirect to the article; if you want to play in the sandbox (ie test things!) then follow the link to it, look for the "Redirected from..." that appears at the top right of the article, follow that link and edit away at the blank page. If you just want the page deleting, shout me and I'll vaporize it immediately. Hope this all helps! Again! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)