User talk:214.13.4.151

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 214.13.4.151, is registered to United States Department of Defense, and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Contents

[edit] The three-revert rule

Once again, in regards to the abortion article. You will be suspended if you violate the three-revert rule. Eyeon 16:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning your edits in the Abortion article: Please read Wikipedias policy of neutral point of view:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--Fenice 16:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Please remember NPOV. 70.177.90.39 07:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.

Your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but Abortion is a very controversial article. Articles on wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view, so please discuss changes to the page on its talk page. --Mike C | talk 16:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help on finding the talk page

Talk pages are also called discussion pages. You find them by clicking on the second tab above the article. There you can add your remarks and also all kinds of speculations. In this specific case you find the talk page to oral contraceptives click here.--Fenice 12:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

Please remember the NPOV rule. 70.177.90.39 07:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make edits that express a point of view, your assertion that some feminists support abortion beacues it allows women to be sexually irresponsible needs to be backed up by references if is going to appear in the article--nixie 06:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Again, please discuss your changes on the talk page. --nixie 06:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are the NPOV stats on reasons for choosing abortion gone?

  • The purpose of the page is not to speculate as to why women have abortions or to comment on those reasons, it is to discuss a medical procedure. --nixie 06:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why is the political and legal information there? That information gives no information about the medical procedure.

Thanks, 214..., for removing my leftovers from "political parties" at the abortion entry. Str1977 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear 214..., I don't know whether you read this, but Fenice is on the prowl again, trying to enforce feminist orthoxy in regard to "Feminists For Life" on the Abortion page. Str1977 10:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks 214... for pushing Fenice to posting a version I think acceptable. It doesn't mention FFL specifically, but it acknowledges that there are pro-life feminists - and not in a segregated sub-section. I think that's all we can achieve over there. Thanks again. Str1977 17:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks 214... for pointing this out. I have answered to David's "mantra" on the Abortion talk page. Str1977 18:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civil rights

Again: read the talk page before making changes. Announce your changes on the talk pages - before you make them, especially on controversial subjects like abortion. --Fenice 12:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions

I'd also like your input on Talk:Oral contraceptive. Fenice is worried that some of the material you insert is biased. I'd like to hear your opinion before I choose sides. JFW | T@lk 11:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Please mind the Wikipedia:NPOV policy on Wikipedia; also, please be carfeul not to reiterate edits such as [1], probably a false manoeuver, but which could be misunderstood by other users. Thank you. Rama 16:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have given abundant reason why the American Cancer Society does not need to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of cervical cancer. Your POV-pushing is getting very annoying. Please desist, or face a request for comments on your behaviour. JFW | T@lk 13:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abortifacient

It is better to bring up POV issues on the talk page than to unilaterally delete content. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFC

You have been made the subject of a request for comments. Perhaps you may wish to comment. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are supposed to put all your comments into the one section "response". Judging from similar pages this page does not work like a regular discussion page.--Fenice 11:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I think you can add your discussion-contributions on this issue on the talk page of this RFC-page.--Fenice 12:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello all - Just to catch you up:

Today, to resolve a conflict, I posted this to Fenice's talk page in a section with other similar comments from other Wikipedians on the exact same topic:

  • Fenice, at this point, the Pearl index data listed is from extremely "pro-contraceptive" sources. Is there a dispute with the data? What is it? If you do not satisfactoriyl explain the dipsute you have with the actual data - besides it being surprising or disappointing to you - to gain concensus, then I will pursue other means to remove the POV tag you have placed. RIght now its placement violates the rule and spirit of Wikipedia. 214.13.4.151 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice erased it and replied with this:

  • Please stop vandalizing other peoples user pages.--Fenice 05:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, I tried to communicate with you. Clearly you reject that attempt at dialogue. I am reposting it on my talk page and on the abortion discussion page so that all can see how princippled you are. I thought you would be open and objective and in accord with Wikipedia's stated goals and principles. Sorry to trouble you with simple reuest for discourse. I will not be going away.214.13.4.151 05:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I have expressed more than clearly that I want to stay out of this, so stop bullying me. Aren't you ever embarrassed?--Fenice 06:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, you have not expressed anything clearly about what is in dispute about the Pearl index information now posted. It is all properly sourced and, since YOU introduced the Pearl language (or at least pressed hard for it being included) it is so very odd that you now want objective Pearl data obfuscated by placing a POV warning. You are embarassed by the Pearl data, and now want it hidden. Birht Control pills fail quite regularly. You don't want women to know that. How sad. Talk about embarassment.214.13.4.151 06:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it has little to do with embarassment but more with incredulity. I tend to side with Fenice that the numbers quoted are still rather wild. Are you sure there is no more conservative estimate. From my own experience in clinical practice, the pill does not fail very often, and certainly not as often as this high Pearl index would indicate. Until then there's this worry about selective quoting, although you appear to be acting in good faith here. JFW | T@lk 13:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comment. The purpose of the RFC was to express my worry about NPOV. I remember myself as a new user having problems with NPOV - oldtimers just get very jumpy when new users make assertions that have a hint of bias (even if this is unintended). We've had too many invasions from pro- and anti-Christians, -Semites, -Creationsists, -Circumcisionists and what have you.

Looking forward to working together in the future. One of the benefits of our "argument" is that the concept of the Pearl index is now prominently on the OCP page. JFW | T@lk 13:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W. Mark Felt

Hi! Thanks for contributing to the article on W. Mark Felt. I notice that you have moved The Washington Times link you supplied to the top of the list of external links several times. I have just opened a discussion about this on Talk:W. Mark Felt, outlining why the links are listed in the order they are. I hope you'll consider joining in the dialogue and explaining your point of view. Jokestress 15:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion with cyanide

If you are going to add cyanide and knitting needles to the list of abortifacients, please cite your source. Eyeon 14:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, find a for-profit and dubious website that hocks knitting needles as an effective anti-abortion drug, and use that as your verifiable source. Proto 10:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus and abortion

You will have to explain this to me - I was threatened as a vandal who would be disciplined when I posted legitimate discussion on someone else's talk page. But I hold others to that same standard (don't post unwanted items to my talk page), and now I am threatened as a vandal for editing my own talk page? Which is it, please? You folks here are funny. You really do have rules that flex and flow to shout down womever you don't like. 214.13.4.151 06:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of my own sanity and in the interest of the Neutral point of view I have decided to have no part with Abortion from now on, I apologize if I mis-construed your actions at all and hope that you can continue productive conversations with other wikipedians and can work towards a consensious on Abortion also please note that my choice has nothing to do with you, it has to do with the fear that I may become enamored with a point of view on this article and may allow my own thoughs on the subject to cloud my judgement as to what a neutral point of view is on the article. Jtkiefer 06:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are inviolation of the 3rr--Tznkai 07:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You, of all people, are silly to point this out, given your recent and current behavior here. 214.13.4.151 07:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I have requested mediation between us.--Tznkai 07:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[2]--Tznkai 8 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks ...

... for your message. I don't think our approaches to the topic in question are that different. You might have got the impression because lately I have been arguing a lot for the distinction between what can legitemately be called POV (though I think it is the right, less artificial, more reasonable POV and actually the truth - talking about personhood) and the undisputable facts (unborn human individual). Since these are facts, the arguing about alledged POV is really not according to Wiki rules, that state that balance and NPOV is not to blur facts. Str1977 15:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Rove

Hi. I have no objection to the change you're making, other than that it is incomprehensible. I would have tried to reword it to make sense, but I didn't understand to do so. Please try to put something in to make grammatical sense! Cheers, smoddy 11:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151 is DOD on Karl Rove talk --Arnoldlover 03:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption of Judge Roberts' children

I see you have been trying to remove the fact that Judge Roberts and his wife adopted their two children from their two articles.

Stop it.

This is newsworthy and it is being reported in the news.

Perhaps you think that the children deserve the right to withhold the information about their adoption. I agree they deserve that right but clearly by allowing the media to find out they have indicated their lack of desire to keep that private.

It is a verifiable fact and it belongs in Wikipedia.

On a purely personal note, I think it is a great thing. It reflects well on the character of Judge Roberts and his wife, and it will hopefully serve in some small way to promote adoption.

Since this change you desire has been disputed, you need to refrain from editing these articles again to make the change without discussing it on the talk pages. Let me be perfectly clear: do not make this edit again until you achieve consensus for it on the talk page. Otherwise I will report you.

Also, please create an account and log in. You can get an administrator to transfer all of your edits, your user talk page, etc. to a new account.

Jdavidb 13:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

For you violation of the 3 revert rule, you have beeb blocked for 24 hours. --nixie 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Nixie, RyanFriesling has posted unverifieable sources that contradict other verified sources within the same article. Seems that HE should be blocked, not me. RyanFriesling is the one who began the reversions. Wake up. 214.13.4.151 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

He is right to revert vandalism, which is what you were doing by removing text en masse. --nixie 14:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Nixie, come on - the same section has two liberal sources that give conflicting information about when Rove's earlier leak to Novak (way prior to this President's first inauguration) occured, and what the circumstances around that are. The source that we can read contradicts what Ryan Friesling keeps reverting. That information is supposedly sourced, but we cannot verify it and he has refused to post an longer excerpt so we can see the context. It seems you are abusing me because of our previous run-in. Not because of any rational basis grounded in fact. The fact is I removed a long and dubious section - dubious because it is unverifiable and contradicts a linked source. 214.13.4.151 15:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

214... it's not abuse, just try to collaborate in good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Friesling, you are missing the basis for my concern and edits: the NPR link at the beginning of this section has people who wrote a whole negative book about Rove chating about when and why Rove was fired for leaking to Novak. Go to the link and you will read that it happened in the 1980s. The information you are posting places this same incident in the 1990s. There is either a 3rd incident with Novak, or else one of the claims made in this section about Rove being fired is wrong. YOUR section is sourced, but we cannot read the source. The other source we can check by clicking on it. Sadly, it is gossip, but at least we can read the gossip and draw our own conclusions. YOUR source is in doubt (or at least the conclusions the wiki articel draw are). Please do some research and tell me what I got wrong. 214.13.4.151 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

If you just used the talk page, and I know that you're got experience editing on controvertial topics, then you wouldn't get in this kind of mess. --nixie 15:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

bingo. 214... I'm glad to engage in this process with you, in good faith - but going in and reverting/deleting other content, without engaging, brings us here. I'm hopeful that when your block is up, you'll bring these concerns to the community, via talk, before mass-reverting the objections that arise. Since I'm a bit exhausted by this 'damage control', I'll hold my responses until you're an editor again, you bring it up on 'talk', and we can go from there. Is it reasonable for me to be optimistic that you'll proceed in good faith? Also, my name is Ryan. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

214, just reminding you that you still have an open invite to mediation with me on the Abortion article. Theres lots to be done. I hope you're playing nice with everyone.--Tznkai 15:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look

Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Is_this_anything_more_than_subtly_unnerving.3F

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, do! With one exception, you've not posted since Calicocat did a DNS lookup. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Not the first time this was brought up. (I did as well, just more subtly), but I really don't think we should get involved in attack someone because of where their IP is coming from. Sorry to see she's been giving you folks trouble. Perhaps if you file for mediation she'll listen to you instead of me?--Tznkai 03:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The user has been largely silent since this information was posted, and hasn't disrupted any articles, etc. - certainly, no attack is warranted. Just think it's important that Jimbo and other prominent Wikipedians know that government-run military computers are being used to access Wikipedia and at times, violate Wikipedia policy. No attack intended, and I apologize if one was inferred. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion debate

Your edit has the problem of being unfactual propaganda. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morality_and_legality_of_abortion&diff=20270595&oldid=20203457 --St|eve 04:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POVPOVPOVPOVPOVPOVPOVPOV... STOP!

You are the poster-child for why anon edits shouldn't be allowed.

"Even the term "choice" is controversial in that its very use hides the specific choice being considered, namely the killing of human life."

Nice addition. Cleaning up after you is becoming a real headache, Mr. Orem Utah. --Quasipalm 14:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What is factually false about that statement? The baby does not have a choice, so this term is indeed hiding part of the truth. Further, using the general definition for "life" used in biology, the act of abortion is indeed the killing of human life. See, for example this definition: life:
In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:
  1. Growth
  2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
  3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
  4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet seperate from, itself
  5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.
...and note that the baby is, by definition, "alive," so what part of this anon's addition here is false? I just don't get it.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
And what exactly is "What is factually false about that statement" supposed to prove, eh ? A statement can be true, yet irrelevant, unapropriate, or tendencious. Rama 08:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It looks like you may be trying to make the argument that 214's statement is POV. I apologize if I can't get your point. (You quoted her as saying: "Even the term "choice" is controversial in that its very use hides the specific choice being considered, namely the killing of human life.") But, you're asking me my point it seems? OK -good and fair question: Well, it seems that maybe the use of the word choice without her clarification might be POV, but I admit, maybe she could have phrased it better. I might have added a bit, to make it read: "Even the term "choice" is controversial in that its very use hides the specific choice being considered, namely the killing of human life -and it hides the fact that the unborn baby has no choice." I might have also added that the baby is indeed alive by the "textbook definition" of life, and then gone on to give that definition along with a link. 214 seemed to always be a big fan of using the definitions, and I definitely am. Maybe you can add the definition of "life" to the article if you're an active editor in that area; also, maybe my improvement on her sentence would help clarify and remove POV bias in the use of the word "choice," eh? ~~ I hope this helps.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo needs your help...

Hey, 214,

I am trying to drum up support for a Featured Article Candadicy for Terri Schiavo: She is getting whipped into shape, and the support is growing for a feature of her article, but I would like your support too.

The page on which we discuss such things is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

Here's a post I sent to Wikipedia's top dude, FYI:

Raw Links here:

Anyhow, I hate to bother the top brass, but the Schiavo article is a Featured Article Candidate, and, while some of the critics have good points about image copyright concerns, most of the other criticisms are unfounded (e.g., length of article must be long to "do justice," etc.), I think the article is stable and very well-written.

Slightly over half of the "votes" are against it being a "Featured Article," but I've whipped the article in shape -with help from many other editors, including Mark (aka →Raul654), the Fac editor. Please honor our combined hard work & team-effort, and use your "god-like" powers, just once more, before you give them up. Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks in advance, 214, for your feedback and efforts.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina please observe Wikipedia:Summary style

Hi, please don't expand on detailed criticism of state or local (or federal) officials under the "Disaster response" section, which should be reserved for the dry factual recounting of the actual disaster response. Especially when those paragraphs are about 90% duplicated in the subarticles. (There is now a See also wikilink at the bottom of that section that directs readers to articles on the political effects of the Hurricane). Summaries of criticisms should go in the "Political effects" section, and detailed criticisms should go into Political effects of Hurricane Katrina.

You have every right to counter what you see as bias towards criticisms of the feds and lack of criticisms of the local & state response, all I ask is that you please read Wikipedia:Summary style, don't duplicate information in multiple articles (beyond what is necessary for a summary of a main article) and put the information in an appropriate section. Thanks. Lexor|Talk 11:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Please review the Wikipedia policy on Neutral point of view. Inserting such terms as "anti-Catholic bias" is unacceptable insertion of your own opinion into an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I asked you politely not to insert your personal opinion into articles, and now I'm telling you. If you do it again you will be blocked from editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

In response to your concern, I did in fact edit the language to make it clear it the portion you mention "anti-Catholic bias" was a POV of some regarding a controversy. You are being autocratic and certainly not responding to my attempt to adapt my edits to your concern. 214.13.4.151 09:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change to include sources for your accusation and making it sound less like your own personal opinion. User:Zoe|(talk) 10:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am so relieved by your reaction!!! I think I am learning how this works. Thanks for your consideration. 214.13.4.151 10:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] His Hollines

Please stop adding "His Holiness" to first paragraph of pope articles. Consensus was reached on this some time ago, and it was (quoting from the comment in the article you ignored) "A discussion on Wikipedia produced an overwhelming consensus to end the 'style wars' by replacing styles at the start by a style infobox later in the text. It is now installed below."

It is not your place to override consensus with your stubborn biases. If you think the issue should be revisited, feel free to create a RfC, but don't unilaterally start changing things that have already been settled. This is not wikicatholics, and it's not the place for advocacy. --Quasipalm 14:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the history on this page, it seems to me that in general you need to work harder at seeking and respecting consensus. Consider adopting this policy: when somebody reverts a change you have made, that's a sure sign that someone disagrees and you need to talk it over. So, rather than going and making the exact same change again (which is nothing but bullheadedness and will never win since anybody can revert you), post a new comment on the talk page. In that comment, indicate what portion of the text you think needs to be corrected, explain the problems you see with that portion, provide your proposed solution, and indicate your willingness to accept any compromise which addresses your concerns as well as your willingness to allow those concerns to be satisfied by an explanation of why others see it differently. Wait for discussion and act when there is a solution that everybody likes. You will go much farther.
To sum up, if somebody reverts you, don't just immediately make the change again. Jdavidb 15:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, please stop adding this honorific in, 214. This time you actually changed the comment that described the consensus on this issue. This is a new low and I will put in a RfC on your behavior if you insist on changing it back. --Quasipalm 17:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)