User talk:ChristinaDunigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Hijacking"

Hi, I removed your post from Wikipedia:Deletion review. It was put in the wrong place - you need to edit today's deletion log to make a new request (go to the 'Decisions to be reviewed' section and click the link where you see "Follow this link to add a new deletion review entry in today's log").

Normally I would move your post myself, but your request doesn't actually involve a deletion. Anyone may move, redirect or edit an article, and for that matter anyone may revert the move or edit. You should query the changes Severa made either on Talk:Instillation abortion or Severa's user talk page, and go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get outside views on the article if you can't reach agreement with Severa. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(moving conversation back here - please reply here, I'm watching this page for replies)

Sam, thanks for the note on Severa's redirection of my saline abortion page. I have tried but have been unable to revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristinaDunigan (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Severa seems to have moved that page as it was, which is different from a redirect - a redirect erases all the content, whereas moving moves all the content to a new page. Then she added information on other forms of instillation abortion. If you tried to revert using the page history, you wouldn't be able to. To revert the move, you would need to click 'move' at the top of the page and then move it back to the original location. Then you would have to decide what to do with the material on other forms of installation abortion. If your account is very new, you may not get the 'move' button for a few days (that's to prevent certain vandals from abusing it).
Telling you how to do that doesn't mean I encourage you to for the moment, however. I would recommend coming to an agreement with Severa first, as splitting an article is a big step and difficult to reverse, and edit wars are strongly discouraged here. Reading the page as it stands, I'm not sure why saline as a solution needs a separate article (I'm not knowledgable in this field, however). P.S. Please sign posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end to post your name and the date. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, Sam. I'm sorry if I'm using the wrong method to communicate but I'm new to Wikipedia, as I'm sure you're aware. I wasn't sure if I posted on my own talk page if you'd see it.
Severa completely replaced my saline abortion article with her own instillation article before moving it to instillation abortion. My article focused specifically on saline abortion as it was abandoned in other countries and practiced in the United States. The amount of information unique to saline abortion certainly seemed to me to warrant a separate article.
How much time needs to pass before I'm no longer "new" and will be able to restore my work? ChristinaDunigan 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1:54 PM August 14 2006
I have this page on a watchlist, so I do see when you've replied. I and many other Wikipedians prefer to keep conversations on one talk page rather than two, otherwise when someone else reads it it's very difficult to follow the thread.
I don't think at this point that reverting per se is best, as that would involve removing some of the information Severa added, which looks sourced and relevant to me. If you specifically want to add more information on saline abortion then it doesn't make sense to remove the more general information.
You can at any point edit Saline abortion so it's a stand-alone article again - if you click on saline abortion, then when redirected click the blue text in 'redirected from Saline abortion' at the top, you will go to the page without being redirected. Then you can edit the article and replace the '#REDIRECT' code with stand-alone text. Once you've done that, it would make sense to link it from instillation abortion. Wikipedia:Summary style has some advice on how to split pages in this way. It also has a section on avoiding the appearance of so-called 'POV forking' (creating a new article so you can more easily establish ownership and put across your point of view), which will be something you need to be careful of as you've accused Severa of having a contrary agenda with her editing (you might also want to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, incidentally).
To retrieve the content you originally added, go to the history tab of Instillation abortion and click the dates in the edit history to see how the article stood at that time.
You'll get the move tab once your account is 4 days old. You'll also be able to edit semi-protected pages at that time. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Sam. I've fixed it.

It's hard to assume good faith when in a single day one user has nuked virtually everything you've contributed on a topic, but I'll make the effort. ChristinaDunigan 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 3:50 PM August 14, 2006

Severa is at it again. I can't find my Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health content to restore it.

I have no beefs with negotiating, but she simply nuked what I had put in, replaced it with a sentence of her own, and then claimed that there was no cite, despite the detailed cite I provided about how CRASH closed in the wake of the death of patient K.B. The very least she could have done was leave the cite in. ChristinaDunigan 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) August 15, 2006

It was Andrew c who reverted you the second time here and here. In the future, be sure to check the "History" tab at the top of a page, to ensure you don't pin blame upon the wrong party. Also, please keep WP:AGF in mind, as several of your comments (e.g., "nuked," "hijacked," "censorship") seem indicative of an assumption of bad faith. Assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors will help to foster cooperative dicussion. -Severa (!!!) 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I notice that the Life Dynamics article didn't even get posted for quick deletion, it just got nuked. This right after the Mark Crutcher article got nuked the same day it was marked for deletion, despite the hangon tag. And I get told that I'm supposed to assume good faith. ChristinaDunigan 14:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Instillation abortion

As for "hijacking" your work, you are fairly new to Wikipedia, and are obviously unaware that one doesn't own a Wikipedia article. You are free to add content, which others are free to edit, or remove entirely if is inappropriate. If one plans on editing Wikipedia, one must learn Wikipedia's standards, and not to take it personally. And, given that Wikipedia is a communal project, it is best to keep WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA in mind so that you can work cordially and efficiently with other editors. Your entry on my Talk page is accusatory in tone, claiming, without due evidence, that I committed "censorship," etc.

On the contrary, I happen to have most of the abortion-related articles on my Watchlist, and monitor for the creation of new ones as part of my routine categorization at WikiProject Abortion. I thus have a vested interest in all such articles. Abortion is a hot-button, sensitive topic, and, as such, requires a higher calibar of neutrality and sourcing than some articles. I understand you are new to Wikipedia, but the presumption of bad faith, right off the bat, will just make a difficult situation moreso. I'd recommend keeping it cool — and maintaining a strong level of personal detachment — if you plan on editing in divisive topics.

Granted, at first, it appeared that the Saline abortion had been plagerized, and thus would be a violation of Wikipedia:Copyright. This warranted immediate removal. However, if you are posting your own work, you must also be mindful of WP:OR. Also, counter to your claim, the article does not provide neutral, reliable sources, as required by WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Many of the claims do not have numbered citations and those which do are deadlinks. I am sorry to say that the burden of proof is upon you to provide sources before you post anything to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it's original research.

The article has a negative, editorialistic tone, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is clearly counter to WP:NPOV; after all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As for recreating the "Saline abortion" page, this seems unjustified, given the fact that saline instillation is now covered at "Instillation abortion." This is the technical term I have encountered in all the academic sources which I consulted; "saline abortion," in a Google search, returns only advocacy sites. I will, of course, be redirecting the page again, because the current fork is redundant and serves only to host your own OR/op-ed piece. -Severa (!!!) 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You took no steps to remove the original National Abortion Federation article, which was clearly taken directly from a NAF PR source and posted verbatim -- it even switches into the first person toward the end. So I don't buy your assertion that you have a problem with articles being too one-sided.

Saline abortion is distinct from other instillation abortions in that it was specifically saline that Wagatsuma and Manabe repeatedly warned about, and their predictions turned out to be accurate. This is relevant information and ought not to be censored. ChristinaDunigan 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) August 15, 2006

The NAF mission statement was slipped into the article by an anonymous editor August 7, 2006. Although most would hesitate to call it WP:Vandalism, for reasons explored on the linked page, it was definitely the typical hit-and-run addition one might expect of an anon IP with no mind toward article quality, context, or NPOV. So, really, it's not like the mission statement was stable content agreed upon by multiple editors. It certainly didn't have my seal of approval. Last I read the article, there was no issue, and, unfortunately, it's not uncommon for these things to "slip under the radar" for a few days on smaller, more obscure pages — even despite the best efforts of the Recent Changes Patrol and the article's regulars. Once you have between 100-200 items on your Watchlist, it'll be impossible to be on top of everything, for obvious reasons. But, thanks for catching the oversight. -Severa (!!!) 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Crutcher article

A tag has been placed on Mark Crutcher, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Mark Crutcher is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Mark Crutcher. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. — ERcheck (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that it got deleted despite the hangon tag. Would anybody care to explain how this doe not constitute censorship?ChristinaDunigan 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Christina, I did not delete the article...I did add the note above to notify you that it had been tagged for speedy deletion. I can't speak for the deleting admin on the deletion. I can suggest that, since you find that the subject is notable, you add verifiable sources to the article itself from the beginning — following the guidelines noted above — in particular, for biographical guidelines (also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), citations, and reliable sources. You can create a user subpage sandbox — User:ChristinaDunigan/Sandbox — and work on the article there before posting.
Assuming good faith on the part of the admin, please don't assume that this is an attempt at censorship; rather, a good faith effort to guard against vandalism and creation of inappropriate articles.
— ERcheck (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was marked for deletion and deleted within hours despite the hangon tag, and the Life Dynamics article didn't even get the formality of the quick delete notice. There was no discussion, just nuking. How about the people with the itchy delete fingers try Assuming good faith? Wouldn't that be fair? ChristinaDunigan 15:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I've removed the db tag from the article and left a note on the Mark Crutcher discussion page. I understand your concern about investing time in an article that gets deleted. However, since there is a question about notability, and potentially about neutrality of controversial persons/topics, reviewing your contribution for balance would be a good idea. (I hope this helps you to navigate Wikipedia a bit more easily.) — ERcheck (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And the Life Dynamics article is nuked again!

Again, absolutely zero discussion! How do I appeal this?ChristinaDunigan 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

— ERcheck (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how there ended up with two articles. The second one can be nuked, fine, it was just a despairing attempt to get something, anything, about Life Dynamics to stay up long enough to give me a gleam of hope that it won't be summarily nuked. The second article accident never would have happened if somebody hadn't nuked the original article to begin with.ChristinaDunigan 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I do suggest that you try to be less confrontational on talk pages. It discourages folks from wanting to lend a helping / guiding hand. — ERcheck (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want the second article to be deleted, please remove the {{hangon}} tag. Add {{db-g7}} tag in its place. This tags it that you, as the creator and sole contributor, are requesting its deletion. — ERcheck (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contributing to Wikipedia

You jumped right in creating articles after you registered to Wikipedia. Perhaps spending a little time reading some of the introductory material suggested for newcomers:

There is a lot of help available — from help pages and by asking on editor talk pages.

Again, I offer the suggestion of working up an article in your sandbox as a way get it in shape to pass the notability/verifability bar. — ERcheck (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What, pray tell, would be the point of working on an article in the "sandbox" when it will be summarily nuked anyway? I've already had hours upon hours of my work utterly destroyed without so much as a discussion. Should I put even more hours into work that will never be seen? ChristinaDunigan 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You can request of an admin that the material be restored and put in your sandbox for you to work on. — ERcheck (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that time invested does not necessarily correlate to meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you familiarize yourself with these and also try to address the reasons that the articles have been nominated for deletion, you may find that the articles do not get tagged immediately. — ERcheck (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How does one do that? (And do you have any idea how condescending that sounds? "Go play in the sandbox."?

The "sandbox" is a terminology used for a user's subpage in which they experiment. Even the most experienced editors/contributors have sandbox pages. I've got over 14,000 edits and I have a sandbox to work in. Sorry that you don't like the terminology, it is not meant to be condescending. It's just one of the many Wikipedia words that are commonly used. (If you find my suggestions unhelpful/condescending, please let me know. I will halt my attempts to be helpful.) — ERcheck (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The "sandbox" would be all well and good if there was any evidence whatsoever that my contributions would be permitted to stand. The orginal NAF article was just NAF public relations stuff. Look at the articles on Warren Hern and Leroy Carhart. (They may have been updated; check what was up there the days the Crutcher and LDI articles were nuked.) How am I supposed to believe, looking at those two articles and the original NAF article, that it was the quality of the Mark Crutcher and Life Dynamics articles that was the problem?

Why should I spend hours, perhaps days, polishing an article that will just be deleted by people I can't even track down and hold accountable?ChristinaDunigan 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MarkCrutcher_2003_sm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MarkCrutcher_2003_sm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Pastrana.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pastrana.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenny Easterday

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kenny Easterday, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kenny Easterday. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Kenny Easterday

An editor has nominated Kenny Easterday, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Easterday and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)