User talk:Christopher russo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!-Andrew c [talk] 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Crisis pregnancy center do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Indon (reply) — 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Crisis pregnancy center. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you.-Andrew c [talk] 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Pregnancy options counseling. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Indon (reply) — 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Crisis pregnancy center, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. — Indon (reply) — 22:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Please remember to always leave an "edit summary" in the edit summary box in order to let other users know your intentions and rationale behind your edits. Also, if someone undos your edits, don't take it personally. The best thing to do is to go to the talk page and discuss the matter with other users in order to reach a consensus. The thing NOT to do is to automatically revert back to your preferred version. This is called edit warring, and excessive edit warring can lead to a loss of editing privileges (see WP:3RR). I urge you to sit back a second, read up on our policies and guidelines, ask any questions you may have, and then consider bring your concerns to the article talk page, instead of engaging in an edit war. Hope this helps, and good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss your changes? You understand that you cannot force controversial changes onto articles. We work through mutual collaboration here. Edit warring is disruptive and inappropriate behavior that can get you banned. I am urging your strongly to cease. Please discuss your changes. I'm sure it can be worked out. But there is no way you can simply force an article to be the way you want it to be when other users disagree. So what is the harm in discussing the matter, and raising consensus before continuing editing. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I'm sorry, but you had been warned up to the final warning in regards to your adding of the link, yet you still persisted in adding the link despite the warnings. Therefore, you have been blocked for a day due to your violations. Hopefully, when the block expires, you can start to use talk pages and discuss matters. You can't "win" by edit warring, and readding links. You can only raise consensus for your changes by discussing matters with other editors. So please, when you return, work with other editors. This isn't a battleground. Use talk pages to make proposals, and work towards a mutual agreement. If you have concerns or questions, please feel free to discuss here during your block. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 23:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, your advice to Christopher to discuss his contributions on the Talk page is good. However, Indon's accusation that he was "spamming" the article appears to be incorrect. I see nothing that meets the definition of spamming.
What's more, I don't think you should have blocked him, because you are an active editor of the article, so you have a conflict of interest in the matter. In the future, please refrain from exercising Administrative oversight in matters in which you have a conflict of interest. NCdave 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)



Domain:

Accounts:

--A. B. (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Hello Christopher,

Thank you for your attempts to improve and balance the Crisis Pregnancy Centers article. I understand your frustration with the folks who instantly revert your contributions, without even Talk page discussion. If you know people who volunteer their time to help young women at CPCs, then you know, as I do, that they are among the kindest, most generous, most loving people you could ever hope to meet. The CPCs are doing wonderful work, helping mothers and children. I sense your distress at seeing such people trashed with vicious attacks on their character and motives.

For example, in response to this attack:

Crisis pregnancy centers are the subject of intense criticism, with allegations that CPCs are deliberately ambiguous in their descriptions of their services, and that CPCs provide false or misleading information about abortion to women who enter the premises.

You added this final sentence:

These allegations have never been substantiated.

Your addition is factual, but IMO, the attack should not be in the article at all. Unsubstantiated allegations should not be included in an encyclopedia article, period. Unless the CPC critics can provide proof that CPCs are deliberately ambiguous in their descriptions of their services and that they provide false information about abortion, then including the allegations in the article is improper, since they are POV-biased and don't come from reliable sources. (Of course, the CPC critics cannot prove those charges, because the charges are false.)

However, IMO some of your other changes needed to be reverted. For example, you deleted external links to three slanted Washington Post articles, and substituted a link to a Boston CPC.

I understand your motivation for doing so, because the articles in question are deceptive, and the lack of balancing references amounts to POV bias in the article. The first deleted link was the worst, because the headline (which was the only thing quoted in the Wikipedia CPC article) declares, "Pregnancy Centers Found to Give False Information on Abortion." That makes it sound like a court or some other reliable arbiter has confirmed the NARAL/Planned Parenthood accusations. But the very first sentence in the article shows how misleading that headline is:

"Federally funded 'pregnancy resource centers' are incorrectly telling women that abortion results in an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and deep psychological trauma, a minority congressional report charged yesterday."

The W-P headline, quoted in the CPC article, changed "charged" to "found," and conveniently left out the fact that it was just a "minority report" by staffers for politicians who get abortion industry money for their campaigns.

Nor does the quoted headline mention that the supposedly incorrect information is actually correct. For example, the fact that aborting a woman's first pregnancy increases her risk of breast cancer is beyond honest dispute, in part because simply delaying childbearing increases the risk of breast cancer; the additional risk, not accounted for by that factor, which many studies have found, is disputed by some reputable researchers, but not the risk due to delaying first full-term pregnancy. Likewise, the increased risk of miscarriage after an abortion, and the psychological trauma, are both well-documented.

The Washington Post article, itself, is misleading, too, though not quite as bad as its headline. For instance, the W-P article says, "research generally has found that severe stress reactions are no more common after an abortion than after giving birth." But that is deliberately misleading "straw man" propaganda, straight from the abortion industry spin doctors. "Severe stress reactions" in the days immediately following the procedure are not at issue, Clinical depression in the years following the procedure are the issue. Suicide rates are much higher among women who have had abortions in the past 5 years than among women who have kept their babies, a fact which the Waxman "minority report" and the article about it don't bother to mention.

My guess is that the misleading claims in the W-P article are actually just taken from the minority congressional report, which is, of course, tainted by abortion industry financial support for the politicians behind the report.

However, those are problems with the Washington Post article, not with the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article's problem is that it misleads the reader about the W-P article.

Simply deleting the link, without Talk page discussion, is not the proper solution to this problem. The fact that CPC critics have been doing this to you does not make it right for you to do it to them. Two wrongs don't make a right. The Washington Post is considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia, so you shouldn't just assume that you can delete links to W-P articles that are misleading. The proper solution is to first lay out the problem on the Talk page, and then discuss solutions. In this case, the main problem is the misleading headline, which is misused as a summary of the article. Ultimately, we should end up to a link to the Washington Post article which correctly calls it a summary of charges made in a minority congressional report.

Please do not be discouraged, Christopher. Your contributions are needed, and many of your edits are excellent. But it won't work to take the anti-CPC people's approach of simply changing the article to whatever you think it should be, without hashing it out on the Talk page. Drop me an email, if you'd like to discuss this or anything else further. NCdave 14:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)