User talk:74.136.222.198/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 74.136.222.198/Archive1, is registered to Insight Communications, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. 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, in which case, 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.

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.

Thank you for your suggestion; I assure you that I haven't added my own conclusions into the male pregnancy article. In return, I'd like to ask you to consider whether a less abrasive attitude would be more productive in an enviroment based on collaboration.

I'll elaborate on the sources. They're in the "External links" section of the article, and the most important one is an article by the Sunday Times (Feb 21, 1999) about Professor Winston's take on this. It covers the basic facts very well. Note that it's not their only source; the other ones refer to many of the same things, and so do mentions not used as sources here. The page linked to [1] is not the only copy of the Sunday Times report. Winston is a highly prominent scientist and an expert in human fertility. Also note that Snopes.com, known for heavy research, is another source.

Not only does Winston refer to this, but it's true by definition.
  • Due to advances in modern medicine the concept is generally considered possible, but both the risks and the chances of success are still at foolhardy levels.
See the sources. This is covered quite well.
  • The ethical concerns that would be presented by any attempt are significant.
Poorly phrased, but factual enough, and doesn't fit OR criteria as it's not specialist knowledge, etc.
See Winston link.
  • — blurring the line between the sexes, from some viewpoints.
See, well, everything about hormones. This is a significant point to make.
  • Rabbit Test (1978) and Junior (1994) ... The latter's attempts are somewhat feasible; the former ignores the matter completely.
Note how this said somewhat feasible. As the film's article describes, Junior gives some basis to its, well, basis. Not necessarily a scientifically valid one, but one that keeps the suspension of disbelief running.
  • Should treatment of male-to-female transsexuals reach a point where post-operative ones can become fertile in their resulting sex, their pregnancies would not be "male" because transsexual women identify and live as female; still, the end result would be that a biologically male body was capable of bearing a child. In either case, a possible future use for the procedure could be helping transsexual women bear children of their own.
I freely admit that the case for this paragraph is weaker. I've trimmed it down to what is - IMHO - mainly semantics.
  • As an offside, your revert destroyed a number of phrasing improvements and the like. I understand that inferior editing can get your blood boiling, but please try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What, exactly, would qualify as credible for you? What's the article lacking? --Kizor 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sufjan Stevens

I have responded to your comment on my talk page at Talk:Sufjan Stevens. Please try to assume good faith regarding fellow editors. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for the next 3 hours because of blatant, nasty vandalism of today's featured article.. See the block log for more details. If you want to contribute constructively, you may return when the block expires. Thanks.➨ ЯEDVERS 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Redvers. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Æon Insane Ward 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Æon Insane Ward 04:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User talk:Aeon1006, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Æon Insane Ward 04:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


With regards to your comments on User talk:Redvers: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. If you display this type of behaviour again on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ➨ Galactor213 10:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Antandrus (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messages

Hi! User:Aeon1006 has decided to retire from Wikipedia, and as such has removed most of the messages from his talk page. He is not trying to ignore you, he is simply trying to live his life in peace. I'm sure it would be much appreciated if you let him be for the moment. Thank you very much. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 07:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I've unprotected this talk page as the block has expired. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)