User talk:Severa/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bye

Sorry to see you go... maybe we'll see you back here if/when things quiet down? MastCell 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kyd... why no email address at least? :( KillerChihuahua?!? 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

I've replied on my talk page to keep topic discussion together - please suggest the parameters you were thinking of including and I'll happily create a draft infobox as a working proposal for others to comment on :-) David Ruben Talk 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

News story

I'm a reporter working on a story idea about ideologically charged Wikipedia pages. Those that fit the bill include: George W. Bush's page, the page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the page on The Armenian Genocide and pages on Creationism and Evolution. I see that you’ve worked on the Abortion page. I was wondering if you might be willing to talk to me about the challenges of keeping pages like this up and unlocked. If you have any thoughts on tracking down the right person to talk to for a story like this, please shoot them my way. You can get me here: matt.phillips@wsj.com

Thanks and take care, —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattPhillips33 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 February 2007

Abortion terminology

I am sorry for the first time, but still, I think it makes more since to call it a baby because it is, it is not my own personal opinion, isn't that what everyone calls it, a fetus is a baby and using the word baby is more comprihenisible. CamelHammel 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

re:Stressed Out

Thank you very much for your words of encouragement. In case it wasn't clear, I never intended to leave wikipedia, or even WikiProject Abortion. I was just stressed over some recent edits of fetus, and decided to ignore that page for a bit. I felt like interpersonal conflict and past history between me and another user were getting in the way of progress. I'm still not happy with the current state of a few articles, but its better for my personal wellbeing to ignore the user and avoid the emotional stress. Thanks again for your comment.-Andrew c 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still at the point where I personally do not want to deal with Ferrylodge, so I personally could not be helpful in a RfC. Also, he has posted a reply to you on my talk page, which was unwelcomed and clearly on the wrong talk page (his comment, not yours).-Andrew c 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not really something I wanted to face, either, especially not alone. I tried the whole avoidance thing, too, but it didn't really pan out. The main issue is in the pattern of editing articles, so ignoring the issue will only magnify it. User conduct was another concern — especially the following-around and uncooperative comments - but my concern was Wikipedia policies and articles. -Severa (!!!) 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Do as much as you can, and don't fret. No need to resolve this immediately, ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Because

Because you deal with considerable um, waste matter, a Pair of Clogs to help keep your toes clean and non-stinky!
Because you deal with considerable um, waste matter, a Pair of Clogs to help keep your toes clean and non-stinky!

KillerChihuahua?!? 10:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Abortion in Israel

(I'm responding here because it's been a couple of days since your comment. Normally I responde on my own talk page.)

Thank you for your help with the abortion in Israel article. I saw that there were several other abortion by country articles and thought that Israel's partially legalized approach would be of interest to many. I'm curious as to why you removed the citation templates I used, however. Is there a policy/guideline against using {{cite}}? I quite like it.

Regarding public opinion in Israel, I'm not surprised you couldn't find any data. The topic is not high on the public agenda. There are one or two anti-abortion lobbies, "Efrat" providesfinancial aid and "Lilach", an organization I'm less familiar with, has a website at BeadChaim.org.il (be'ad chayim means "for life" in Hebrew). The name "lilach" seems to be,not a reference to the flower, but a contraction of "for me" and "for you" in Hebrew. The site seems primarily education-oriented, although I'm not certain how accurate their information is.

Pro-choice advocacy in Israel is equally rare. The two parties most likely to be involved are the recently-defunct Shinui, a socially liberal capitalist with a secular agenda, and Meretz, a liberal socialist left-wing party with the most notable "women's rights" agenda in the Israeli political opinion. Still, the issue is rarely addressed, and when it is, there's little media coverage. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist?

Hey, Severa! I've only been an editor for about 5 months, can you explain how I can add the stuff you put on my talk page to my, uh, Wikipedia experience? Thanks! Joie de Vivre 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied at my talk. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Assessments II

I was going by the MILHIST criteria, which is the same as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. And if the second article has issues with OR, then it might not meet the accuracy criteria for B-Class.

Oh, and you're welcome.--Rmky87 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus and I have been the only ones assessing the abortion-related articles. Due to the volume of the task, I, at least, have been refering to the standardized criteria more loosely than other assessors might (i.e., "going with my gut"). :-) -Severa (!!!) 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

abortion laws in portugal and spain

i would like to inform that fortunately the map abortion laws around the world is wrong now!

-)

Portugal and spain are blue: the abortion is legal on demand!

in 11 february 2007 things have change in portugal: almost 59% of the portuguese voted YES, so that weman have the right to choose. No more trips to england and spain to make a legal and safe abortion!

verify in any portuguese newspaper, e.g. http://www.publico.clix.pt/, "aborto" or "IVG - Interrupção Voluntária da Gravidez"

thanks!

Marta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martaccorreia (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

so, we meet again!:) the problem with the abortion referendum is that it failed for lack of turnout, less than 50% of the registered electors casted valid votes. Opinion polls estimated the overall support for the YES to be aroung 60%+. The previous referendum had failed two-fold: lack of cast ballots and NO majority on the cast ones. there is a certain apathy in Portugal this days towards politics that explains this. Interestingly, and because Portuguese abroad can only vote for the presidential and parliamentary elections, there was a group of portuguese in Barcelona that protested for being "prevented" from voting. Given this state of afairs the prime minister José Socrates decided that "the people had spoken" and it would use it's legislative powers, which are based on the majority PS holds in Parliament,which together with the support from the left-wing PCP and Left Bloc make out about 60% of deputies, to enact legislation that would de-criminalize abortion. This laws still have to run the gauntlet of assembly approval and presidential veto, though I don't think Cavaco Silva, the president, will oppose them, given the broad consensus among deputies and it's usually practical approach to politics. Jeez that was long....
On the Severa issue. She might have or not a family name, afaik she was from a very poor background and rose to some prominence from the singing and later the film about her. Fado was very heavily promoted by the estado Novo as "real portuguse culture" so she probably got more fame after long dead than through life. I need to reseach this, I could be wrong. Now, the name... her fist name would me Maria Severa, sort of like Jean-Michel, Maria is a very common name so most Marias end up being known for their 2nd name (Severa in this case), because Maria is seen as a sort of walking cane for the 2nd name and are usually also somewhat catholic inspired such as Maria da Anunciação (annunciation), Maria da Liberdade (Liberty), Maria da Purificação (purification) and so on. this does not happen when Maria is the second name, as in Ana Maria or in the queen's name Dona(Mistress) Maria. I hope this makes sense, further questions are welcome Galf 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Just one more, since u are Canadian (Oh Canada....) and I'm Portuguese, what is your take on Nelly Furtado? Galf 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merle Terlesky

User talk:209.89.134.26 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Thank you for experimenting with the page Merle Terlesky on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -Severa (!!!) 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC

You left this message on my IP page, and I confess that I'm very confused. I made an edit that I explained the rationale for on the talk page, not a test. As I stated in the talk page, I came on the page by surfing from link to link in Wikipedia, but the paragraph I deleted I think *should* be deleted, and I'd appreciate it not being marked as a "test." --209.89.134.26 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ABC link

It is too conclusive, but that's how its predominantly referred to by pro-lifers, and pro-choice / media responses sometimes label it as such in their critiques. It clarifies immediately they are one in the same; and as such I think it puts ABC link in the appropriate context, rather than ABC link making anything conclusive. If a women comes across this I want her search for "ABC link" to come up with Wikipedia results as well. - RoyBoy 800 05:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do, great suggestion and thanks... hopefully soon it will officially be a good article. - RoyBoy 800 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Human dignity
Choose Life Inc.
American Victims of Abortion
Theology of the Body
Ayn Rand Institute
Casual sex
Campaign Life Coalition
Priests for Life
Roe effect
Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland
Diary of an Unborn Child
Joel Brind
Constitutional theocracy
Lethbridge West
Attorney General v. X
Soranus
National Lawyers Association
Queensland Right to Life
Cleanup
Hodgson v. Minnesota
National Organization for Women
Naturalism (philosophy)
Merge
Knights of Columbus
Mutilation
Sex selection
Add Sources
Apologetics
Abortion and Evangelical Christians
Pro-life feminism
Wikify
One People's Project
Fisherian runaway
Nacelle
Expand
Misandry
Make-A-Wish Foundation
Oriel Chambers

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Maria Severa

did you name yourself after her ? Galf 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Severa is the feminine form of severe, a feature one could easely attribute to Snape (yes, I read Harry Potter too) She was a Fado singer in the 1800's possibly the first one to be "famous" unfortunatly she has no article yet and something tells me she would be deemed not notable enough. Anyway, have you read Censorship in Portugal yet? I heard it's a great article! really, I did. actually it's one in need of a native english speaker, preferebly one with no insights on the subject, to proofread and spot any weird stuff. All help is welcome, comments on the talk page :-) Galf 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
One other thing i just remembered, you are interested in the abortion debate, I added the final tally and to the Portuguese abortion referendum of 2007, minor corrections, .01% more on the YES side. Galf 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The translation u asked fore is there :) she did have a last name and something else to do other than sing...Galf 11:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Names in Iberia/South America

you are right about the family names, usually 2, from mother and father, in PT mother 1st father 2nd. in ES its the oposite, father 1st mother last. Sometimes in PT at least last 2 names from both mother and father are used, so 4 surnames, add 2 1st names and married name and u can add with no less than 7 names....names in royalty can be even worse, Maria Francisca Isabel Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Paula de Herédia de Bragança is the daughter of D. Duarte Pio, the heir of the Portuguese throne, and that is her maiden name! Galf 19:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Deletion

Why did you revert a proper contribution found here [[1]]

80.4.39.7 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume the deletion was an error and will undo it shortly. The edit you deleted is from a cited published journal paper so the deletion does not make any sense other than being an error.
80.4.39.7 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I see you have made a large number of edits elsewhere since reverting this proper contribution but you have chosen not to answer here. Why is that? You reverted an edit citing a published journal paper. Please explain your actions. Good faith has been assumed but the failure to answer together with the fact of numerous edits since being asked to explain shows bad faith.
80.4.39.7 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response here [[2]]
I hope you do not mind the observation that none of the above appears justification for deleting an edit. Especially when:-
  • that has been done without comment
  • an experienced editor who first reverted acknowledged he had done that in error and recognised the validity of the edit
  • an experienced editor like you could have easily edited the entry - if that is possible - which seems difficult as it already seems to be part of a summary of a 5-6000 word journal paper
  • when another anon whose ID has the appearance of a sock-puppet and who just as you have done once, had been repeatedly reverting the edit
Further, this is not a large verbatim quote. The extent of the quote is also appropriate in the circumstances. It does not violate any copyright and is well within accepted academic standards internationally.
There is no flow of an article to break as it was in a section specifically existing to set out the findings of relevant studies. There appears to be no WP:NPOV issue as the study it references is one of a number listed and it is a journal paper being cited.
If you feel that paraphrasing is appropriate for something that is already a paraphrase of a 5-6000 or so word paper then you are welcome to edit. If you might be kind enough to acknowledge that wholesale deletion of the edits of others is not a constructive action in building an encyclopedia that could assist resolution. Perhaps on this occasion it was an oversight.
With respects to your strongly held views, there appears nothing contentious about citing the conclusions of a journal paper especially when this is amongst the citations of other journal papers. There was also nothing to indicate anyone thought this was contentious - you, for example, simply deleted the edit without explanation. Hopefully you will agree that makes it impossibly difficult to know what objection anyone else may have.
Regarding your comments about dropping everything, your deletion took place half a day ago. You have been editing throughout the day. There is no issue of dropping everything. Further, if you undertake a destructive action, you need to consider explaining yourself as a matter of courtesy and priority. Thank you for now having done so.
I will revert your earlier reversion and may I suggest you edit the contribution in line with how you see the entry as an appropriate form of encyclopedic entry. I may have more trouble doing so than you and you appear to indicate you can see how that can be done. Accordingly, by your own account, you appear to be suggesting a superior position to carry out the task, and having deleted the entry once seem to have strong views in the matter and hence an incentive to attempt the task.
80.4.39.7 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Severa, obviously, but one issue has to do with the undue weight provision of the neutral point-of-view policy. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, despite its bland title, is a fringe journal which is not indexed on MEDLINE (a red flag in terms of scientific validity). The edit which was reverted was constructed to imply that the J Am Phys Surg article "rebutted" the Cochrane finding, when in fact the Cochrane finding carries much more scientific weight. Again, I'm not Severa and I apologize for jumping in on her talk page, but those are my 2 cents. MastCell 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're perfectly welcome to jump in, MastCell, especially since I was unaware that there was a concern over the journal. Admittedly, I have a lot of "stray" articles on my watchlist, and Vaccine controversy is one of them. Basically, it's an article on which I only monitor for test edits and such, not an article in which I have a great investment content-wise, because it's not a subject with which I'm especially familiar. 80.4.39.7, perhaps you should go ask User:86.151.6.36 [3] and User:86.147.238.200 [4] why they reverted your addition, as they were the ones who reverted you first, and it was their reversions which prompted mine. I have a feeling I've simply stumbled in off my watchlist and gotten caught in the crossfire of a content dispute between you and those other two anon editors.
The three-paragraph quotation was added into the article by 80.4.39.7 for the first time on 21:13, 18 February 2007. Generally, if the content of an article has been stable for a period of time, it falls to the editor who wishes to see a new addition to the article to build consensus supporting that change — not for other editors to defend the stable, long-standing version. My reference to contention, I thought, would be self-evident, given the "controversy" in the title of "Vaccine controversy." What I meant to say, basically, was that topics which are the subject of dispute generally require more discussion and agreement between users to be written effectively, so perhaps it would be a good idea to take your proposal to Talk:Vaccine controversy and see what the other editors there think. That way you could work contructively with other users to reach an arrangement which would be agreeable to all the parties involved.
I see patience as a basic matter of courtesy, 80.4.39.7. I, like many editors, try to balance my time on Wikipedia between many things. It is one think to ask for an explanation, but, to demand it repeatedly demonstrates an unfamiliarity with WP:COOL, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. I understand that you're new to Wikipedia, so you might have been genuinely unfamiliar with these policies, but I recommend that read check them out, as they will greatly help you in dealing with other editors on Wikipedia. —Severa (!!!) 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Whilst the ex post facto analysis of your actions in reverting is helpful, it does not explain why you reverted instead of editing a valid contribution to further the development of the encylopaedia. It seems you may also be going off topic. Forgive me if I have this wrong but it would seem to be you User:Severa who has to explain your actions in the light of the new information from User:Ferrylodge here [[5]]. Assume good faith only applies to the extent there is no evidence to the contrary. Here there is evidence to the contrary. It looks very much like that especially in the light of User:Ferrylodge's information.
It also seems User:Ferrylodge would be justified in posting to WP:ANI for his own protection.
He was blocked after User:Severa failed to respond to requests to explain her reversions. Here she has done exactly the same thing. However, she appears to have done so after what appear to be two sockpuppet editors reverted my edit. This then makes hers the third and it is this that raises an inference that she was setting me up for a 3RR block by refusing to answer and hoping I would revert three times in 24 hours and that the same occurred with User:Ferrylodge.
Not only that, but she uses the same excuse here that she used with User:Ferrylodge, that she takes time making her edits - but her edit history shows she was editing for half a day elsewhere. This also shows she had plenty of time to have added an explanation for her actions when she carried out her reversion and the fact she did not raises the inference that was because she could not do so and further supports the inference of setting another editor up for a block. And the evidence shows it would have been difficult for her to justify a reversion of the edit. She reverted an entire edit which was a quote from a published journal paper. The only proper action to edit it would be difficult as it is a verbatim already published quote which was already a precis of what the journal article reported.
User:Mastcell's intervention is to attack the messenger, he must know science works by rebuttal. The Cochrane Collaboration have failed to answer the criticism. The journal that published this damning criticism of Cochrane has a mission statement to the effect that it is there to seek out and destroy unscientific BS like that published by Cochrane. The silence shows it is BS. Medline can be pretty slow adding journals to their index and there can be little doubt they might be a bit slower in some cases than in others, if you get the drift. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has a readership many times greater than most of the medical journals existing. There are a vast number of medical journals and most of them cater to fringe medical interests with vastly smaller readership. So let's dismiss all medical journal articles cited in Wikipedia with a proven number of subscribers of less than, say, 3500. So if you cannot prove a journal has that number of subscribers, you cannot cite its papers. Sounds good to me.
80.4.39.7 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of having some relation to User:86.151.6.36 and User:86.147.238.200? Neither of those is my IP address and I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith and not make accusations without due cause. Like I said, I drifted in off of my watchlist, saw something which had been reverted twice by two different users, and figured that it was a clear-cut case of 2/1. On a daily basis, I revert a lot of things which turn up on my watchlist, including vandalism, test edits, poorly-formatted additions, etc., and a lot of the time it's on articles on which I don't have a personal involvement. If habit makes for haste, then I'm sorry, perhaps I should try to consider each situation individually instead of running on autopilot. However, I've only reverted you once, in comparison to the other editors, who together have reverted you twice. I have no intention of reverting you again, because I'm not a regular contributor to Vaccine controversy, I'm not really familiar with the history of the article or the background of your conflict with the other two editors. Again, I would recommend you take your proposal to Talk:Vaccine controversy, so that you can work with other editors of that article to reach a version agreeable to everyone. Working in conjunction with other users and building consensus on a matter is a good way to prevent back-and-forth changes like those of yourself (80.4.39.7) and 86.151.6.36/86.147.238.200. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful toward you regarding your concerns for Vaccine controversy. I think the points you are raising here would be better raised on Talk:Vaccine controversy, where someone more familiar with the issue might be able to address them.
Per delays in response, WP:COOL states, "Take it slow. There is no time limit for a discussion." I find it sometimes helps to wait until I'm in as calm, measured of a mindset as I can be before approaching certain situations, so I ask that other editors please excerise patience.
Actually, Ferrylodge was blocked by User:InShaneee, who took it upon himself to block Ferrylodge for 3RR, acting completely independently of me (as he confirmed in this post). I devoted a substantive amount of time to responding to Ferrylodge's concerns on Talk:Abortion (see Archive 26) so it's not like I can be faulted for refusing to reply to him. The disagreement between you and I, 80.4.39.7, is completely independent of disagreements between myself and Ferrylodge, so I ask that you consider both of the situations objectively and as being isolated from one another. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Explain Reverts

As with the previous comment, I have also been waiting for an explanation of a revert. See here. This has happened many times to me, where Severa has reverted but without explanation. If a person is too busy to explain when a revert is made, then the revert should be postponed until an explanation can be given. Here is the pertinent Wikipedia policy:

"Explain reverts
"When a revert is necessary, it is very important to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.
"Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, 'rv page blanking'). Because of the lack of non-verbal communication online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars.
"If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page."

Thanks.Ferrylodge 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I explained the problem with the "Feticide" link in this post, and, aside from reiterating what I have already said, I don't know how much more by way of an explanation I can over you. Also, in this post, you stated that the link "should be restored to the template." This, to me, suggested that you were proposing that the link be reinserted, and asking us what we thought. However, you went ahead and restored the link to the template a mere 29 minutes after proposing that it be re-added. I might very well ask for you to explain what the purpose of suggesting that something should be done was if you were just going to go ahead and do it anyway. I think Andrew c was right in that you need to stop operating under the assumption of "silent consensus." It often takes me longer than 30 minutes to write a post — longer if I have to do research. If you jump the gun during that period and assume that I'm not going to reply, basically, it just sends us right back to square one. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't "butt in" with off-topic posts in matters not directly related to you, as you did on User:80.4.39.7, because it is extremely difficult for me not to intepret this as confrontational button-pushing. The dispute with anon was completely unrelated to you, or any article we both frequent. -Severa (!!!) 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Severa, when I restored the longstanding status quo at the abortion template by reinserting the feticide link, I did so only after adding more material about abortion to the feticide article, only after explaining my reasons in an edit summary for reinserting the feticide link in an edit summary, and only after also explaining my reasons at the abortion template discussion page.
In stark contrast, when you subsequently changed the longstanding status quo at the abortion template by removing the feticide link that I had reinserted, you did so without any discussion whatsoever in response to any of my comments or edits. None. That is not consistent with Wikipedia policy about explaining reverts. Again and again over the past months, you have reverted my edits without any explanation, and also without responding to my discussion of why I made those edits in the first place.
You refer me to this comment that you made before I discussed the matter at the discussion page to point out why your comment was mistaken, and before I edited the feticide page to include further discussion about abortion, and also before I reinserted the feticide link in the abortion template. That comment of yours did not address any of my comments or edits whatsover.
You not only decline to acknowledge your failure to explain reverts, but you criticize me for contacting another editor who had the exact same concern about you reverting without explanation (he said, “if you undertake a destructive action, you need to consider explaining yourself as a matter of courtesy and priority”). Here is all I said to the other user: “I have posted a general comment about reverts, and the need to explain them, here.” That’s it. That’s all I said to the other user. And in response to my message to the other user, you now accuse me of "butting in", and of “confrontational button-pushing”. That is utter nonsense. If what you are saying is that I should keep my mouth shut, and never discuss with any other user our shared concerns about your authoritarian editing style, then I decline.Ferrylodge 05:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Following other editors around without a good cause is not acceptable, Ferrylodge — in fact, it's very clearly defined as disruptive behavior and disallowed by WP:HAR. I understand that we're going to run into each other in the articles we edit, which is fine, but the fact is that you went out of your way to insert yourself into a situation which had no relation to you here. My dispute with 80.4.39.7 wasn't related to you in any way, or to any article we edit together, so the fact that you contacted 80.4.39.7 is seen by me as an effort to stir something up. User:Jimmuldrow might be interested in learning about our shared concern over your "shadowing" of other users, but I've yet to leave a note on his Talk page, because I don't edit the articles about those court cases and that dispute does not pertain directly to me. -Severa (!!!) 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Your accusation of "following other editors around" is false. The previous section on this page includes comments by 80.4.39.7. That's how I found out about 80.4.39.7, not by monitoring your activities. The concerns expressed by 80.4.39.7 mirrored my own current difficulties with you, and so I mentioned it to him. Please try to relax, Severa.Ferrylodge 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
By "following around" I was referring to your having posted on 80.4.39.7's talk page. Jimmuldrow and I are both sharing the same difficulties with you, regarding your persitent following-around, but I haven't contacted him, because I understand that your dispute with Jimmuldrow is completely isolated from your dispute with mine, and I have no wish to uspet the apple cart just for the sake of it. -Severa (!!!) 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there...are you coming or going? you can hardly decide? anyway, something for you O_Crime_do_Padre_Amaro on the abortion subject....from 1875 if you are tired of the Abortion subject Portugal could use a few native english speakers....Galf 08:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Going, sorry. It was fun working on a few articles together. I look forward to seeing more of your Portugal-related translations around the English Wikipedia -- they're interesting reads! -Severa (!!!) 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go...I could really use a proofreader....low stress, high yield? goog luck on your future projects Galf 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, maybe, when I have the time. You're definitely right about proofreading being a lower stress pursuit. :-) -Severa (!!!) 12:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fetal pain

Just letting you know that I have reached the last straw with Ferrylodge again, and I am currently not working on any content disputes that involve him. I've let Ferrylodge "win". While I disagree with a number of recent changes by Ferrylodge, I"m not going to edit or discuss them because I do not have the energy nor the desire to deal with interacting with Ferrylodge. If Ferrylodge's edits are really as bad as I see them, then one day someone will come along and notice them and take up the fight. If not, then the content stays and I have already moved on. It's tough, but I don't know what I can do. I'm glad to see you back and editing again, but I really wish that you weren't involved with a dispute with Ferrylodge right now at Talk:Abortion. I wouldn't wish that for anyone. Good luck, and I hope that you are stronger than I was.-Andrew c 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I agree completely that wikipedia should work on consensus and compromise. However, I feel the content disputes with Ferrylodge are too personal for me. I cannot handle that sort of stress, so I am backing down, for now. It's things like being called a vandal because I switched a bad image with a good image at Fetus. I specifically made the proposal to reinsert an image and no one opposed it. However, I waited a month to make sure everyone had a chance to comment. After having a comment on my talk page that the current rat fetus image was bad, it inspired my to implement my proposal which no one opposed. So I restored the cat fetus image. But because of this, I was called a vandal. After an admin pointed it out, Ferrylodge finally admitted that my actions clearly were not vandalism under wikipedia policy, but still did not apologize (and went on to say me edits were in bad faith and so on). Also, Ferrylodge incorrectly claimed that 3 people had previously opposed the catfetus image, and I proved that not a single person opposed that image, yet I get no apology or acknowledgment for that either. And it's little things, like I have admitted when I have been wrong in the past, so because of that Ferrylodge throws comments like How many times have you already apologized to me for getting your facts wrong? at me. I get called a vandal, I get Why do you violate Wikipedia policies and all these accusations. NONE of this stuff has occurred on user talk, but on article talk pages. On user talk, I was called a liar and a slanderer. The list goes on and on. While having lived through some very heated content disputes (the BCE vs BC over at Jesus, the RCC vs CC over at Catholic Church, the first paragraph business at abortion), I've never once had so much personal animosity towards me from another user. I think part of the problem is these disputes are going on at smaller articles, so its basically me vs. him, when the larger articles have dozens of editors contributing to the discussions. I have tried to get more input with RfCs and solicitations from the reference desk and wikiprojects, but only a few users have shown up, and many leave after a comment or two. So I'm at a point where I cannot face these disputes alone. Just thought I'd explain a bit, and it's turned into this rant. Sorry about that. Anyway, thanks for everything.-Andrew c 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Come on, if you dealt with Cindery, you can handle Ferrylodge :) Which pages are in question? Are you referring to fetal pain? That sounds like about as productive a topic for an article as number of angels capable of dancing simultaneously on the head of a pin. I'm happy to take a look, although I'm currently a little worn out with my ongoing peripheral participation in a lengthy ArbCom case. MastCell 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Andrew c: Your post here isn't a rant. I completely sympathize with your concerns, because I've had similar experiences. On Talk:Fetus, I raised several objections against the photograph of a plastic model of a fetus which Ferrylodge wanted to add to the article (see this diff). Ferrylodge's response was to repeatedly present what I had said out of context, forming my words into a strawman, by implying that the only reason I objected to the photo was because of a wedding ring. In fact, I'd objected for several reasons, least of which was the distracting composition of the image, and this misrepresentation of what I had said is not something which I can attribute to a benign oversight on his part. Discussions with Ferrylodge often take a distinct turn for the circular. This I could manage, I suppose, although it is certainly counterproductive, but it's the habitual defensiveness on Ferrylodge's part that is the main issue. He has never AGF on my part — not since the very beginning, when he was blocked for 3RR on Abortion by User:InShaneee, a ban which he immediately chose to pin on me, despite the fact that InShaneee explained he had blocked Ferrylodge of his own choice, acting independently of me (see this diff). Ferrylodge has never acknowledged this fact, even when the anon from Vaccine controversy dredged this incident up last week (see this diff). I just wish Ferrylodge would bury the hatchet. Wikipedia is a community-driven project, you have work with people, not against them, to get anything done.
2. MastCell: Articles Ferrylodge has edited substantially since late December 2006 include: Stillbirth (pushing to have "stillbirth" redefined to include miscarriages beginning at 8 weeks), Abortion, Abortion in the United States, Roe v. Wade, Fetus, Fetal pain, Late-term abortion (pushing to have "late-term abortion" redefined to include anything after 8 weeks, using his own op-ed piece as a citation), and Beginning of pregnancy controversy. These edits are not isolated or new, and, if you're up for a challenge, we could use your help. While I disagree with your assessment of Fetal pain — I don't think it's a lost cause, it could certainly be made into something neutral, informative, and well-referenced under the right circumstances — the image of angels dancing on a pinhead made me laugh. :-) -Severa (!!!) 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't make a habit of jumping into other people's discussion pages, and do so rarely. However, I did notice this discussion, because the section header "fetal pain" came up on my watchlist (I have edited the fetal pain article recently). So, given that I saw this discussion, I'm unsure whether I have some duty to be quiet and say nothing, or speak up. So here's a middle course: please feel free to contact me at my talk page to discuss any of these issues. I deny the accusations, and am more than willing to discuss them if anyone here would like.Ferrylodge 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I appreciate that you have bit your tongue for the time being and had the courtesy to say the above and be civil at it. It is hard to have people talk about you (behind your back even) and fight back the urge to defend yourself or go on the counter-attack. Thanks for that. However, I do not believe that you "don't make a habit of jumping into other people's discussion pages". For example:
It seems that more times than not, if there is a content dispute you are involved in, or if someone mentions you on another's talk page, you are much more likely to "jump into other people's discussion pages" than you are not. I think the only exception is 30 December 2006 InShaneee (Ferrylodge's name was mentioned, but he didn't show up to comment). Anyway, I have tried working with you and I am fed up right now. You are acting nice and civil now, but I fear that won't be the case always. I'd rather not deal with you than start a dialogue with you that gets you worked up and ends up with accusations pointed at me. Your civility and wikiquette have improved some over the past few months, but old habits die hard.-Andrew c 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe what you will, Andrew c. I'd rather not deal with you too.Ferrylodge 16:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Ferrylodge: It might be helpful to acknowledge that you do seem to have a habit of jumping in on other people's talk pages — this can demonstrated by example diffs, as Andrew c posted above. Whether you meant to do this consciously is another matter and you are welcome to contest my earlier conclusions that you intended to upset the apple-cart. But there is definitely a discernable pattern of jumping in, which other users can find troubling. You may want to consider being more mindful of this in the future. Consider starting a new thread to raise your concerns directly to the person on that person's talk page, instead of posting on whichever talk page on which they have posted.
2. Andrew c: Per your edit summary, I don't believe in removing content from user talk pages, unless it's vandalism or something added by a spambot. Moving the two posts above would break up the flow of this discussion, but, as those two posts aren't really addressed to me, I'd ask that should you and Ferrylodge feel like continuing this dialogue, that you please do it on either of your talk pages. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Severa, look, I don't know if you're inviting me to say more here, or advising me not to say anything here. Andrew c cited five examples without links:
[Duplicated list removed. See above for the list].
Perhaps it would be helpful if he would include links, if you want us to dissect those particular instances. In any event, five instances in the course of a lifetime does not constitute a habit. Was I addressing GTBacchus, SandyGeorgia, Andrew c, Vassyana, and Musical Linguist in those instances, or was I addressing someone else? Andrew c does not say, and you imply that I only would have been committing a faux pas if I was addressing someone else. If this is the best you can do in terms of criticizing me, you do not seem to have much.Ferrylodge 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c provided examples with timestamps that should make locating the diffs in question easy. Nonetheless I took the liberty of linking to the diffs. -Severa (!!!) 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And, yes, I realize that edit constituted "removing content," before someone points that out, but the information was already available above, and this thread is already on the long-ish side. -Severa (!!!) 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessments

You're quite welcome! You're actually the first to notice my mad mission to reduce assessment backload. I'm wildly careening from project to project, from India to Gliding to Finland to Gospel Music and more. I'm in an assessing mood, and wanted a lil' break from WP:NRHP. Me and my short attention span! *lol*
Just so you know, I have a tendency to rate low. Sometimes my stubs are what others would consider starts, and my starts might be thought B by some. I figure, though, at least they're rated, and the projects can go from there. Thanks for the thanks, and keep on keepin' on. :) --Ebyabe 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, you're on an assessment mission, indeed! I checked your contrib history and your last 1000 or more edits are all assessments! I tend to eye things on my watchlist like a hawk, so it's hard for me not to notice things. WPAbortion is a small WikiProject, so it's sort of difficult for us to get tasks done, due to the volume of work to be completed and the shortage of people available to complete it all. I really appreciate the fact that you took the time to help us out! -Severa (!!!) 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussions

I appreciate your efforts to communicate and maintain harmony with me. My personal life has been stressful lately and it has leaked into my Wiki experience. Please excuse me if it has bothered you.

I have clarified my view on one of the categorization schemes at Category_talk:Abortifacients. Please read it and let me know what you think. I have lost the link to the discussion of the entire categorization structure if you would like to remind me. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Portugal...

There's Censorship in Portugal to proofread, Quinta das Lágrimas to AfD the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles) to improve, there's Flag of Portugal to feature. want my personal advice? if stressed, keep away from your regular articles.....Galf 08:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Va-cay

Severa, I saw your comment at Andrew c's page. In all seriousness, I hope you have a good vacation. I hope it gives you some space to chill out. Joie de Vivre 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your friend is active again on vaccine controversy and elsewhere. I've studiously avoided vaccine-related articles up till now (for the same reason I avoid water fluoridation controversy and its ilk, and abortion-related articles for that matter), but it looks like I'm getting sucked in. Hope things have quieted down on your end with a well-deserved Wikibreak. MastCell Talk 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Cane Corso page

Dear Severa,

Thank you for your assistance on the Cane Corso page! There have been several users who have been deleting content on this page without reason:

(Feb 2007) 64.52.227.138 - This user added a link to canecorsoworkingclub.com so perhaps it is the owner of that site, David and Stacey Kuneman?

(Mar 2007) Zoe DeVita (aka 69.204.223.67, 69.204.211.47 and perhaps even 68.198.8.214) - This user has REPEATEDLY deleted content and has been replacing it with a link to her personal dog breeder website. I have sent her a message through her talk page as follows:

"FYI, Wikipedia does NOT permit external links to personal web pages such as your dog breeder website. It is also proper etiquette to refrain from deleting photos that are within Wikipedia's guidelines simply due to any personal vendetta you may have."

She has not responded to me, but continues to act against Wikipedia's etiquette and guidelines.

Any further assistance or guidance you provide will be greatly appreciated...thank you!

User talk:Canecorso

Abortion in Switzerland

Sorry, Switzerland is not in the EU, so I had to revert your category change. Maybe a Category:Abortion in Europe would be more sensible than a Category:Abortion in the European Union? Sandstein 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've deleted the latter, now empty category. Sandstein 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of it so promptly, and for calling this deficiency in the former category's title to my attention. -Severa (!!!) 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Abortion

Even though I get the impression our POVs don't match, I appreciate that you work so hard at boring chores like talk page archiving, which the lazier Wikipedians avoid! I'm lurking in that area more than contributing, but your name keeps showing up on my watchlist. Thanks for working so civilly with others. ElinorD (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Abortion in Portugal

Hi there,

Since today, abortion in Portugal is legal "on demand" till 10 weeks of gestation... if you could edit the world map it would be appreciated... thanks!Portugalgay.pt 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking your name in vain

Just FYI, user Foremanfan is complaining about your Abortion revert on my Talk page... [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheffieldSteel (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 April 2007

Recent reversion

Your immediately reverting good-faith sourced edits. A little quick on the undo button there, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.229.84 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 April 2007

I already explained on User talk:SheffieldSteel and Talk:Abortion why the miscarriage source did not meet the requirements of WP:RS. If you disagree, please address the matter on Talk:Abortion. Snippy comments such as the above are not constructive. -Severa (!!!) 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that you were referring to Intact dilation and extraction. I thought you were User:Foremanfan, from Talk:Abortion, who had perhaps accidently logged out. Please be more specific in the future so that I know exactly to what you're referring. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Abortion II

Are you in charge over abortion page? The word most, I thought if I put it there it will be better, everywhere I go around the world, I always hear this topic, so by now, most of the world is really talking about it, so, I do not think word most will throw anything in the corner. Foremanfan 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No one "owns" a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and the two relevant to this case are WP:V and WP:CON. If you check out Talk:Abortion, you'll see that there is an independent topical subpage, Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, dedicated specifically to discussing the intro. This page has a total of 5 archives — separate from the 29 archives of Talk:Abortion — so that gives an idea of how much time has gone into writing the intro (particularly regarding the inclusion of the word "death" — this still keeps coming up, even though the consensus is toward keeping it). Substantive discussion has helped to build an agreement toward the current wording. If someone comes along and wants to see something changed, that doesn't override the existing consensus; a new consensus would be needed to replace the old one before major alterations toward context could be made. -Severa (!!!) 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Intact dilation and extraction

A friendly warning; you are in violation of [[WP:3RR]]. I'll assume you weren't aware of this rule and will restore my recent additions appropriately. - O^O 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The PBA definition in the introduction of Intact dilation and extraction has been unchanged since May 2006. When there is a dispute over content, the onus is on the editor who wishes to see changes made to build consensus in support of such changes before they are put into effect in the article, not on other editors to defend the long-standing, stable version. One person does not a consensus make. I directed you to the ongoing discussion on Talk:Intact dilation and extraction regarding the introduction no less than three times (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). Although you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink, but, nonetheless, here's a friendly piece of advice: working collaboratively is a lot more of an effective way to get things done around here. -Severa (!!!) 06:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of votes for Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

An editor has nominated List of votes for Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, 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/List of votes for Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 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. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your frequent use of argumentum ad temperantiam.

The "middle ground" is not the same as accuracy and neutrality. You have invoked this notion of "middle ground" many times in the past two days, and I think you have confused this fallacy with Wikipedia policy, which it is not. 70.242.229.84 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting court cases to describe medical procedures

First of all, it's good to see you around. I hope that all is well with you. Anyway, I noticed the discussion at the D&E talk page, and it reminded me of the ongoing discussion on the IDX talk page. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving that page a glance, and throwing out your opinion if interested. It is basically the same thing that you are experiencing at D&E, only worse (IMO) because the description wasn't expanded, but instead POV, emotive testimony from a nurse was quoted at length. Thanks for your consideration, and I'll consider throwing out my opinion over at D&E.-Andrew c 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png

Thanks for the update on the Abortion Laws Map... now we need the "no legend" version for the portuguese wikipedia ;) Portugalgay.pt 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about the oversight. :) -Severa (!!!) 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

... did things quiet down at Talk:Pregnancy, or would you still like me to take a look? MastCell Talk 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope all is well

Hope all is well. You seem to have been considering leaving recently, and I'm very glad you didn't. Thanks for all the work you do around here. Musical Linguist 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete notice

It took me a while to figure out what the hell was going on (and I'm still not entirely sure). I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm not retarded and wouldn't have made a mistake like that. So I went back into the New user creation log (my trawling grounds for vandals and bad page-creates) and it looks like User talk:Kyd created that article. And I went to put the speedy tag on that user's page, but you know what? It redirects here.

It's a little confusing because the User:Kyd history says you changed your account name from Kyd to this one on 13:50, 25 March 2006, while the creation log lists User:Kyd as having been created on 22:58, 11 May 2007.

So I'm thinking someone just now created the account Kyd, which somehow still has the user and talkpage (i.e. the redirects) of your old account Kyd? Ford MF 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

After I clicked "save" for this, I saw you had already figured it out first!
Anyway, the person doesn't appear to be a very active vandal or page creator, so I don't imagine it'll be much of a problem in the future. But I didn't know that could happen; weird username quirk. Ford MF 01:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, how did YOU figure that out? I still had my creation log window open, but otherwise I'd have been screwed. How do you find out who created a deleted page? Ford MF 01:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Hair/eye colour doesn't play a significant role in fiction. It's just indiscriminate, get a consensus for the addition if you wish. Matthew 10:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do indeed. I've read the books, watched the films... I don't recall hair and eye colour playing a significant role. Matthew 10:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in call-signs or nicknames (although, they do play significant parts in some fiction). Please keep the argumentum ad ignorantiams to a minimum, cheers! Matthew 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You dismiss that hair and eye colour can be relevant facts in written fiction (or even in TV and film — blind viewers couldn't discern either fact from viewing a program alone), but accept that that nicknames and call signs can at times be significant, based on nothing other than your own personal judgment. Yet I am the one making "arguments from personal belief?" -Severa (!!!) 11:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't often fully agree with Matthew, but on this one I do ... The information is just not useful enough to have in a general Infobox such as this one. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Alright. I suppose I'll just make a custom infobox for the book series, then, if it comes down to it. I don't disagree that infoboxes can have varying standards for the inclusion of information — I just do not appreciate having my good faith edit discounted with the curt edit summary, "Very indiscriminate additions removed...". -Severa (!!!) 12:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is; eye and hair color are not important elements within stories for most characters (you can switch eye color and the story won't change). Things as species, call-signs and nicknames are just that in many anime, sci-fi and adventure fiction. A character nick-named 'Ace', often says something about how the character is perceived by the fellow actors. Saying a character has 'Bambi-eyes' says something about how that character is perceived within the story. Saying that the character has "blue eyes and blond hair" in almost all cases says absolutely nothing. Think of the lame stories you'd get.

I actually object just as much too the HP template having these paramaters. Mostly I object, because you try to give a description of the looks of a character, where describing them with only those 2 elements simply cannot do them justice, like I have shown above. As such it is better to include this information fully within context in the article itself, rather then smacking the fact into the infobox. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)