User talk:IronAngelAlice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot.
Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.

[edit] Abortion

Nice work on the recent edits. I like how you brought all the disparate bits on unsafe abortion together in a cohesive section. Phyesalis (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fetal pain

The fetal pain 'summary of overview' seems a little redundant to me anyway. (Do we really need a summary of the overview of an article?) I primarily objected to the idea that an editor would delete information simply because the editor couldn't be bothered to look for the refs. (In a summary, where by definition the information is already elsewhere in the article!)

Fetal pain is on my watchlist primarily for obvious vandalism and I have no interest in working on it. However, I thought your summary "furthermore, fetus has an instinctual response not a response to pain" indicates a strong POV. The major point about this issue is that different people have different views about what constitutes pain. According to your personal definition of pain, withdrawal from a needlestick isn't sufficient to constitute pain. That's fine. However, other people have very different ideas of what it means to experience pain, and their views are at least as valid as your view and my view.

The history of these perceptions is important: during my lifetime, major surgery was done without anesthesia on neonates on the grounds that they didn't "really"understand/experience/get harmed by the pain (and therefore the risks of anesthesia weren't justified). Similar arguments have been made (and not just by mad scientists under the Nazis) about people with advanced dementia or disabilities. We can all understand why a person who saw a three-day-old newborn weeping, screaming, sweating, and struggling in apparent agony during a surgery would have less trust in "scientific views" about what's "really" pain.

I don't have any interest in being involved in regular editing of the fetal pain article. However, I'd like you to consider how much your personal POV was involved in your recent decision to delete information. If you think it was significant (even if not overwhelming), then perhaps you would consider neutrally rephrasing that sentence, instead of deleting facts that you don't happen to agree with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that not every study should be included, and that a general summary should suffice. Please be aware that I deleted a sentence that did not have scientific merit. I have no interest in the political debate. The sentence I deleted said this: "Early in development, from about 12-18 weeks gestation, there is a complete link from the periphery to the thalamus in the brain, and the fetus shows clear evidence of defensive reactions against tissue damage including hormonal and hemodynamic responses."

This sentence insinuates that fetal pain can occur in the 12th week, which is clearly editorializing because the study cited concludes: "Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age…" --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that "Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus" is a POV -- a point of view endorsed by many researchers, but still a point of view. Not everyone has that POV. I think it would be better to rephrase the sentence to indicate the undisputed facts: a fetus at 12-18 weeks gestation has a certain level of neurological development and some verified physical responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

However it is not my POV. It is an expert POV backed up by research. That's called science (or at least scientific discourse). --IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion and Judaism

Greetings. Glad to see your energetic work. I saw that you made some changes/deletions in the Judaism section. I tried to be responsive and put back some of the material, as I thought necessary. In my edit summary, i asked if you (or whoever) would kindly take this to Talk if you disagree. However, you basically reverted my edit without any edit summary. Would you mind discussing these points more in article Talk. Thanks, pls reply there or to my Talk. Best wishes, HG | Talk 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I identified and discussed the disputed points at Talk:Religion and abortion. Be well, HG | Talk 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life terminology

Hey, I'm not sure how I feel about a WP-wide shift from "Pro-life" to "anti-abortion", but I'd really be up for a comprehensive discussion of it on Talk:Abortion or WP:WikiProject Abortion. I agree that within abortion-specific articles, "anti-abortion" is more accurate and less POV. Phyesalis (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion and mental health

Hey! I just wanted to drop in and let you know, I thought that the changes over there were made a bit quickly, as evidenced by the tension. I can understand your frustration. Given the pace of change, I think people got some lines crossed and we're not taking time to allow for consensus to develop (I think consensus is a process, not necessarily the outcome of an initial poll/vote). I mean, we've heard very little from Strider. You've got a number of valid points, and I think we should discuss them. This would be easier if everybody involved stopped reverting the article and spent some time in substantive discussion. I'm going to post something over there to that effect. I also left a note over at Equazcion's about discussing editorial approaches off-article. Hope this helps! Phyesalis (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, my pleasure. I think once people start making comments like this and comparing one editor to another in disparaging ways, GF has temporarily left the building, and then it's just time to just cool out. Phyesalis (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey we're both trying to edit the same stuff but in different ways, do you have IRC? Phyesalis (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis‎

I've created a request for mediation. Please list there if you agree or disagree to participate. If you want to discuss/expand on anything related to it, please put it on the talk page. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2001/1-2/2001-1-18.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a quote that comes from that page, and is attributed to Hinduism Today. That's why there is "a substantial copy."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fetus pictures

I understand your concern about the pictures, but it's obvious to me that you didn't look at the new ones before you reverted. Despite the file names, they are black and white images. The images were submitted to WP:GL/IMPROVE to remove the JPEG compression artifacts. I understand how you could be confused, and I will have them uploaded under less misleading file names. Please do not revert next time. Edit warring is not part of my bot's task, and I don't engage in it anyway. I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation)

I have nominated Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings fellow Wadhamite!

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Yes I was at Wadham, though a little earlier than you - 1979-1982, as a law student (who spent way too much time on the river).--ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Alice, please cease edit warring in the Crisis Pregnancy Centers article. You have repeatedly inserted the same unsourced, poorly-sourced, and demonstrably false information to bash CPCs, and deleted balancing information. On Wikipedia, that is called disruptive editing. Some of the errors have been pointed out on the Talk page, but you ignore that and just reinsert the information, without participating meaningfully in the Talk page discussion. Please stop it. NCdave (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1) I have only reverted your text once on that page today.

2) I have been replacing non-reliable sources (ex: from the National Right to Life Committee) with reliable sources (ex. from Congressional testimony) per Wikipedia's reliable sources document

3) I have sourced everything I added

4) I have been using the talk pages religiously

NCdave, please don't tag the regulars with meaningless criticisms you've copied from elsewhere and pasted here.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice, what are you talking about? I didn't copy/paste anything. You've reverted three times today (more if you count consecutive edits), and you've ignored the specific complaints about the inaccuracies you've introduced, such as your insertion of the false claim that most CPC funding comes from the Bush Administration's Faith-based initiatives, and your sourcing is mostly political polemics from anti-CPC sources, like Rep. Waxman. Please discuss proposed controversial changes to the article on the Talk page before making them. There's no need for your edit warring. Let's work together to make this a better article. Please? NCdave (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The specific complaints come only from you. I have not re-added the text AndrewC and I disagree about. Please don't over-dramatize. Please stop spamming my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that your 3RR violation has been reported on the 3RR noticeboard. NCdave (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

2 reverts happened over 2 days. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi, IronAngelAlice. I didn't want to make Talk: Abortion and mental health focused on you, the editor, so I decided to comment on my own talk page instead. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was longer than I expected it to be. You can check it now. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

If you think you may have gone over 3RR (I'm not sure, I've not looked at all of the diffs), then the best approach by far is to voluntarily self-revert and undo your last set of edits. MastCell ^Talk 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reinserting disputed changes

Per: Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Shun Ferrylodge

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis#Disputed_status

I would like your input on removing the Disputed banner. I'm planning to resubmit for GA review in mid-April. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another inaccurate 3R warning by NCdave

Yet another inaccurate 3R warning by NCdave

Alice, you have done 11 reverts on Abortion and mental health, in less than five hours, all of them promoting a particular POV, plus several additional edits during that same time period which also promoted that same POV. You've violated WP:NPOV, and the only reason that you are not again[1] in violation of WP:3RR is that many of your reverts were consecutive. If you revert again, you will be in clear violation of WP:3RR. Please cease edit-warring, and please read WP:NPOV.

For your convenience, here are diffs showing your 11 reverts:

First group of consecutive reverts:

No. 1. 16:42, 19 March 2008 diff: [2] (reinserted opening claim that the abortion/mental health relationship is an area "of political controversy, but of little scientific controversy" from this earlier version: [3], and reverted several other changes)

Additional consecutive reverts:

No. 2. 16:43, 19 March 2008 diff: [4] (reinserted description of Coleman as "a pro-life activist")

No. 3. 16:48, 19 March 2008 diff: [5] (blanked an entire section, including Washington Post reference)

No. 4. 16:54, 19 March 2008 diff: [6] (deleted this: According to The Times, the Royal College warned that "women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions" and that "women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.")

No. 5. 17:00, 19 March 2008 diff:[7] (deleted Royal College stmt: "The specific issue of whether or not induced abortion has harmful effects on women’s mental health remains to be fully resolved. The current research evidence base is inconclusive—some studies indicate no evidence of harm, whilst other studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion.")

No. 6. 17:52, 19 March 2008 diff: [8] (Deleted "In light of additional studies undertaken since that time," and mischaracterized it in the edit summary as "deleting editorialization")

(and several other edits, all pushing the POV that abortion has no adverse mental health consequences)

Second:

No. 7. 19:51, 19 March 2008 diff: [9] (blanked an entire section)

Third:

No. 8. 21:51, 19 March 2008 diff: [10] (again deleted "Studies have reached conflicting conclusions on the question of whether abortion has a harmful effect on womens' mental health.")

No. 9. 21:53, 19 March 2008 diff: [11] (again deleted "In light of additional studies undertaken since that time")

No. 10. 21:57, 19 March 2008 diff: [12] (again deleted: According to The Times, the Royal College warned that "women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions" and that "women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.)

No. 11. 22:04, 19 March 2008 diff: [13] (again changed caption from "Royal College of Psychiatrists" to "A call for more research")

NCdave (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AAPS

Hi - did you take a look at my talk page post before reverting? My point on the talk page was the the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons is not a particularly reliable source. It's also unclear from the text what relationship the 15 members who said something back in 2006 have to the current statement from the RCP. Just thought I'd check in. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll put a response on MastCell's page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is 131.216.41.16 really IronAngelAlice?

I was researching a past posting I made at User talk:131.216.41.16 [14] and found below it this posting from Coela indicating that 131.216.41.16 was your account. Is this correct?--Strider12 (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] ArbCom proceeding

Please be aware that restrictions upon your editing are now being considered by the Arbitration Committee, as are restrictions upon the editing of Strider12. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)