User talk:131.216.41.16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

Here is some reading material:

[edit] 3RR

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Post-abortion syndrome. I also see that you have started a thread on the talk page. This is a step in the right direction. Re-inserting controversial material which is under discussion is not productive. Please stop edit warring and continue dialogging on the talk page. If you continue edit warring and reverting the edits of other users, you will be blocked. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that you have not broken 3RR. I'm just giving you a warning just so you know that you are getting close and to hopefully encourage you to stop editing the article and instead go to talk. A warning is a request before one is blocked for 3RR violation. I have likewise warned LCP. If it continues from both sides, you both may be blocked and/or the page could become locked from editing.-Andrew c [talk] 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Institute

I see others have objected to your style.

FYI:

http://www.answers.com/institute


in·sti·tute (ĭn'stĭ-tūt', -tyūt') tr.v., -tut·ed, -tut·ing, -tutes.

To establish, organize, and set in operation. To initiate; begin. See synonyms at found1. To establish or invest in an office or a position. n.

Something instituted, especially an authoritative rule or precedent. institutes A digest of the principles or rudiments of a particular subject, especially a legal abstract. An organization founded to promote a cause: a cancer research institute.

An educational institution, especially one for the instruction of technical subjects. The building or buildings housing such an institution. A usually short, intensive workshop or seminar on a specific subject.


NOTE: The building definintion is only one of many, and is subserviant to the "organization" which is the true "institution."

Your argument about buildings and immediate attack on PWU actually come across as petty, silly, and loaded with a desire to immediately bias readers against Reardon.

You are actually weakening your arguments in the way you present them. Don't try to front load the article with attacks, especially abbreviated ones that digress off onto attacks on PWU's credibility and the Elliot Institute. You are engaged in ad hominum attacks asseting guilt by association and really distorting what should be a simple introduction which explains that Reardon has come to be of some note because of the studies he has published related to a controversial topic, abortion, which has resulted in additional controversy around Reardon himself. Then just find a place in the body to present the facts without your inferences. See Wiki policy on "no new research"

I'm not your enemy. You can find proper ways to present the facts you feel are pertinent, but I won't stand by and let you distort the facts with inferences and deducations of your own or to front load the article with non sequiters.

Find someone to read what you are writing who is not quite as passionately hostile to Reardon who can help you moderate your approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


I saw your silly "noun" response.

All of the following definitions of Institute are nouns: n.

1. Something instituted, especially an authoritative rule or precedent. 2. A digest of the principles or rudiments of a particular subject, especially a legal abstract. 3. An organization founded to promote a cause: a cancer research institute. (MAYBE EVEN A POST-ABORTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE) 4. An educational institution, especially one for the instruction of technical subjects. 5. The building or buildings housing such an institution. 6. A usually short, intensive workshop or seminar on a specific subject.

Your "arguments" lack even minimum level of credibility.


Strider12 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Abortion Syndrome

I find your discussion in how you are trying to dominate and edit the entry on Post-abortion Syndrome appalling.

NON-PEER CENSORSHIP

If a study associated with Reardon and the Elliot Institute has been published in a peer reviewed journal listed in Pub Med, it should be treated the same as any other peer reviewed journal articles. It is, by definition, an academic study since it is published in an academic journal by editors, publishers, and peer reviewers who -- even if they dislike the findings -- agree that it is up to the standards of academic literature.

What you guys are proposing is a that you are better experts than the experts selected by medical journals to review studies accepted for publication.

You are also proposing a one-sided filtering process -- or at least painting a scarlet letter over only the research of one side. Do you honestly believe that researchers who publish articles which claim there are not abortion related problems have no political opinions on abortion?

You are also proposing that all the researchers who work with Reardon in any way are pariah and suspect and are working towared the view that every bit of research published that disagrees with the APA's official position on abortion--which the APA admits is a political position on civil rights--should be ignored, deleted, or flagged as highly suspicious. Why shouldn't the studies of Nancy Russo be flagged as highly suspicious since she editorializes right in the midst of her papers against informed consent and parental notice laws.

This suggestion that Eliot Institute (really Reardon) studies should be treated differently is a blatent argument to embed point of view throughout this article.

The ignorance of the editors hacking away at this is demonstrated by the fact that Reardon has never done any collaborations with Cozzarelli and NONE of the studies that are peer reviewed have ever been published in The Post-Abortion Review which only publishes summaries of the studies AFTER they have been published in medical journals...which is a requirement for publication in peer reviewed journals.

That there is even this discussion going on smacks of bias.

Anonymous 131.216.41.16 is clearly regurgitating criticisms of Reardon and the Elliot Institute as fact and is only semi-literate on the literature, promoting first impressions or a party line. He or she should back off and read the entire body of Reardon's studies, not just the complaints of his academic opponents, before dismissing them.

At least I give you guys credit for being unrelenting in promoting your bias -- oh no, just the "fact" that you know more than the publishers, editors and peer reviewers of journals that have published Reardon's studies...and more than all of the colleagues who have worked with Reardon in doing this research...and therefore in your superior wisdom you are protecting Wikipedia readers from being infected with information from the "bad studies" published by top medical journals.

You are the antithesis of encyclopdia editors....you are candidates for George Orwell's thought police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] approaching 3RR again

You have been mentioned in a discussion at the administrators' incidents board. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued reversions by known sockpuppeteer. You are not required to respond there; I'm only making you aware of the discussion.

Anyway, it was pointed out that you are very close to violating WP:3RR on the David Reardon article. You need to slow down. 3RR is not a license to make three reversions every 24 hours, and you may be blocked for edit warring regardless of whether you break the letter of the rule.

Again I am suggesting that you log into the User:IronAngelAlice account, instead of editing from multiple IP addresses. ··coelacan 15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)