User talk:Wikidude54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I mentioned earlier, your edits to Abortion in Canada are quite biased, so they will continue to be reverted. Please stop. Thank you for understanding. Al 05:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My post recently has been the following.:

Many in this movement question the legitimacy of using public money to perform what is called a "personal decision" that others, including the state, should have no involvement in. They argue that the state should seek to promote the prosperity of its society, and provide increased funding for serious life threatening diseases such are cancer, instead of assisting abortions.

The standards for the website say as follows:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view.

The post above clearly does not do this. I have not stated that this is the right position. It is certainly more acceptable than the following post that I found in the article under Politics in paragraph 3:

Former Prime Minister and Liberal leader Paul Martin has indicated he would protect a woman's right to choose, but to what degree he would go in forcing his party to do so is not clear.

This statement is not neutral in the least. Were it neutral, a woman's right to choose should be in quotations as something that Paul Martin said, or should be reworded to say protect access to abortion.

Also, in the History section in paragraph five. I capitalized the p in parliament and it was changed back to a small p. This is an error. Parliament in Canada uses the capital P spelling. It is meant to refer to our specific federal institution of Parliament. This is similar to how Congress in the United States uses a capital c as opposed to a small c. We have no other institution that spells Parliament with a capital P in Canada. I can hardly see how you can classify that as vandalism or opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude54 (talk • contribs)

Continuing discussion from User talk:70.28.40.126

Glad to see you now have an account; just so you know, in the future if you could sign your posts by typing "~~~~" (without the quotes) that would be great.

To answer your last point first: I'm sorry if a necessary capital letter got lost in one of my reverts; I was mostly concerned with taking out the POV information that you had added (such as changing "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" and "no abortions were prevented" to "no lives were saved"), as these kinds of statements are considered vandalism. If you have constructive edits, like adding in a capital letter where it is needed, please feel free to do so.

As for your most recent addition, which you have, it seems, added three times already (please see the three revert rule), I'm afraid it is blatantly POV, and does not belong in the article. Saying "many in this movement question the legitimacy..." is considered to be using weales words, which we try to avoid as much as possible. "...what is called a 'personal decision'" is another example of this. Besides, who are these people you're referencing? Do you have proof that "they argue" this? If you are going to make a statement like this, it must be cited. Finally, as was mentioned by the last editor to revert your paragraph, this information, even if it were presented in a non-biased manner, does not belong in an article that is meant to give information about abortion in Canada, as it references the political debate aspect, not the factuality of the law or practice.

One more thing, to address your concern that other statements in the article may not fall under all of the rules that I am trying to help you out with here. There are many people working on these articles, and sometimes people are able to sneak in sentences that should not be there and yet go unnoticed for a while. If you have a serious concern about the use of certain terms that already exist in the article, it would be great if you wanted to bring them up in the talk page and start a discussion on whether or not they are POV. Not every article is perfect, but just because there may be undesirable sentences already there does not mean that more can legitimately be added.

I hope I have answered your questions. Please don't hesitate if you have more, or if something is unclear. romarin[talk to her ] 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I'm having trouble navigating how to send a message but here it goes again. I must say, of all of the people I have encountered on Wikipedia, you have been very helpful. I've found using the communication features kind of hard so I appreciate your help. I have added something to my post and put it in the access section where I think it is actually more relevant. In addition, I have put a quote to show who is saying this statement. Talk to you later.

Wikidude54 05:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, you keep trying to reinsert this text, even though other editors consider it to be highly biased. You're not going to get your way by edit-warring, so just stop and go to the Discussion page. Al 05:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikidude, I'm glad I've been helpful to you, but I've got to say, the most important advice I can give you now is please stop adding in that text. If you keep it up, not only will you be in violation of the 3 revert rule (though I believe you already are), but you may be blocked from further editing. I appreciate your attempt to better your paragraph, but it is still POV, and still sub-standard for a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned before, the best thing to do at this point would be to post it in the talk page and ask for advice. That way, you will get some feedback, and you won't be in danger of being blocked. But I can't stress enough that continuing to post it, while it continues to be reverted, is not the way to go.

By the way, you are doing just fine with the message-sending thing. Don't worry. If you are having trouble using the talk page of the article, all you have to do is click on the link I provided above, then follow the same steps that you have been following on your own talk page. romarin[talk to her ] 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This last post can in no way be labelled POV. It is topical to the section, which discusses access to, and funding of, abortion. It in no way favours any side, and does not use any labels that could be regarded to misrepresent any group. Talk to you all later and Happy Victoria Day.

Wikidude54 06:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're referring here to your most recent edit; thank you very much for toning it down. We all appreciate it, I'm sure, and it fits much better than what you were attempting to add before. However, Al is right (see below); it does need a citation. Thanks again, and good luck. romarin[talk to her ] 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite needed

You recently added the following sentence to Abortion in Canada:

The appropriateness of funding abortions with tax dollars remains a contentious issue between pro- and anti- abortion groups.

I have flagged it as needing citation. Wikipedia requires that statements be supported by citations from reliable sources, so if you do not furnish a citation promptly, I will wind up removing your inserted text. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)