| Revision as of 23:37, 14 March 2007 editHydriotaphia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,222 edits →Rehnquist← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:49, 14 March 2007 edit undoAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,258 edits archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| : Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007. | |||
| ] to Misplaced Pages! Your articles and edits are very helpful and appropriate; keep up the good work! Feel free to drop me a message at the "talk" link beside my name. --] ↕ ] 00:22, May 1, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikiquote link == | |||
| I hope I didn't come off as rude. I agree it's sort of a shame for the link to be buried at the end of the article. It might be interesting to put wikiquote links inside infobox templates. I'm not really sure what sort of reaction that proposal would garner. I also forgot to mention that I didn't understand the "pov pushing" either. Cheers, ] 23:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your edit to ]== | |||
| Your recent edit to ] () was reverted by an '''automated bot''' that attempts to recognize and repair ] to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. ''']''' for '''frequently asked questions''' about the bot and this warning. // ] 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I converted ] into a redirect. That's the first time I tried such a thing, so it didn't work the first time.] 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] and ]== | |||
| Hi Ferrylodge. You've done a fine job with ], but I would urge you to instead update ], since they basically cover the same subject matter. --] 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Tisco. I thought carefully about whether or not to start a new article, and I think a new article is probably appropriate. If you look at the ], it has a section 6 that briefly mentions a bunch of different proposals, without going into much detail. Therefore, Misplaced Pages includes other pages specific to each of those proposals (they are listed in the "See Also" section of the ]). So, I think the page I've created fills a big gap, and it complements the various other Misplaced Pages pages on specific proposals for DC representation (e.g. ], ], ]). Also, please note that the Misplaced Pages page ] is now historical rather than current.] 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see your point, but I am concerned about have too many pages, as the casual reader may not follow all the links. At the least, the page for ] (now little more than background for the current effort) should be merged into your new page, perhaps under its own subject heading. And use whatever means possible to emphasize to the casual reader that further detail is available on another page; this could include "seealso" tags, maybe even a sidebar (though I've never used one of those). Another merging project that currently needs to be done (since you evidently have the time and the motivation) is to merge ] into ] (see discussion ]). --] 19:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't have a '''''whole''''' lot of time and motivation. :-) However, I have merged the page for ] into the ], under its own subject heading, and created a redirect. The lead section in the new page has lots of links to related details on other pages. I'll try and merge ] into ] later today.] 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, ] has now been merged into ].] 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == See Rehnquist talk page == | |||
| Let's both try to avoid point of view issues. I don't want to antagonize, but you made a few assumptions that were incorrect in point of fact.] 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We'll continue this discussion at the Rehnquist talk page.] 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Abortion == | |||
| Regarding your recent edits to this article, you have now been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the ]. In the future, discuss controversial changes, and do not attempt to end disputes by repeatedly reverting back to your preferred version of a page. --] 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If you would please look at the '''''DISCUSSION PAGE''''', as I repeatedly requested that Severa do, you will see that I did discuss these changes, and that Severa refused to do so. Apparaently, InShaneeee, you refuse to do so as well.] 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The three revert rule is absolute, and you have no excuse for violating it. --] 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::InShanee, two questions. (1) What is a user to do when another user refuses to engage in discussion? (2) Is it not true that user Severa violated the three revert rule?] 21:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you ] for your intervention elsewhere. There is further dialogue on that related matter here ]. | |||
| The double standards are interesting. Excuse me if I do not wait around to find out what happens here (and there). | |||
| ] 11:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock Request == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=A user named Severa requested that 3RR be considered. This was inappropriate. I made some edits, and repeatedly requested discussion on the discussion page. Severa refused to acknowledge my discussion requests until after I was blocked. The edits I made are fully explained at the discussion page, and they are entirely appropriate edits. Severa seems to have violated the 3RR policy. Thanks.|decline=This is a valid block, if people will not respond to your discussion, then try ], but violating 3rr is not justified.-- ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)}} | |||
| I made no such request. I merely warned that the editor ought to consider 3RR in . Ferrylodge has repeatedly attempted to add the content to ], and, when politely advised that such content did not meet WP:SIZE and WP:BIAS, responded by repeated reversions and . I have also responded to ] (unfortunately, I do take a bit of time to draft my replies), although Ferrylodge persisted in reverting his edits, although the previous version of the "Public opinion" section had been stable for months and no Talk page discussion had approved of his version. -] (]) 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, my two questions are: (1) What is a user to do when another user refuses to engage in discussion? (2) Is it not true that user Severa violated the three revert rule? It's all well and good for Severa to begin Severa's discussion at the Discussion Page after Severa has already had me blocked, but the fact is that she gave no indication prior to blocking me that she had any interest in responding to my repeated requests for discussion. As for the edits themselves, I think people can easily judge for themselves who is biased and who is not.] 21:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::1. I am not an admin. I did not — moreover, ''cannot'' — block you (and, were I an admin, I still couldn't block you, because admins cannot block users when themselves involved in the dispute). I also have not filed a 3RR/vandalism report against you (check my ]). The block seems to have been InShaneee's choice, acting entirely independent of me. | |||
| :::2. I have replied to your discussion on the ], and, thus, I do not understand on what basis you are claiming that I "refuse to engage in discussion." | |||
| :::3. Reverting ], like , is exempt from 3RR. -] (]) 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::1. Severa, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you were an admin. I simply referred to the fact that you warned an editor to consider blocking me. Nor did I ever say that you had filed a vandalism report against me. Can we please stick to facts? | |||
| ::::2. You have indeed replied to my discussion on the ], and (as I have already explained) you did so after having me blocked, and after not indicating in the slightest way that you would respond to my repeated entreaties for discussion. Thus, I do not find credible your assertion that you cannot understand on what basis I have claimed that you "refuse to engage in discussion." | |||
| ::::3. I did not commit any vandalism, and therefore your reversions are not exempt from 3RR. You had stated that "There is no neutral basis to claim US warrants more coverage than Canada, Australia, etc." Therefore, I merely pointed out that "There is no neutral basis to claim Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland, and US warrants more coverage than other countries." ] 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ferry, at no point prior to your block did I have any contact whatsoever with Severa. The block was done at my own discretion. --] 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::InShaneee, Severa stated above that "I merely warned that the editor ought to consider 3RR." Perhaps you didn't see her warning. I don't think it's particularly relevant whether you did or not. I have yet to hear any response to my two questions. (1) What is a user to do when another user refuses to engage in discussion? (2) Is it not true that user Severa violated the three revert rule? And you can use my full user name, InShaneee.] 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I no where "warned an editor to consider blocking ." If, as a result of my edit summary (""), InShaneee chose to block you, it was his choice, and his choice alone. I never advocated a block, in any form, as you implied above, twice: | |||
| ::::::A. "''A user named Severa requested that I be blocked.''" | |||
| ::::::B. "''...after Severa has already had me blocked, but the fact is that she gave no indication prior to blocking me...''" | |||
| :::::I strongly object to being blamed for something in which I had no involvement. Again, the choice was InShaneee's, alone, and I had no bearing in his decision. I have requested that Inshanee comment here in order to clear up any confusion. -] (]) 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I strongly object to Savera's assertion that I am singling her out for blame regarding my being blocked. That is nonsense. Also, please note that Savera has just stated: "I no where 'warned an editor to consider blocking .'" In contrast, on this very page, in this very thread, Severa previously said, "I merely warned that the editor ought to consider 3RR." | |||
| ::::::Can we please stop focusing on a virtually irrelevant matter? I have yet to hear any answer from InShaneee to my two questions. (1) What is a user to do when another user refuses to engage in discussion? (2) Is it not true that user Severa violated the three revert rule? And, as I said, you can use my full user name, InShaneee. Thanks.] 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (Resent indent) | |||
| I said, | |||
| "I made no such request. I merely warned that the editor ought to consider 3RR in ," which, following an unblock request, in which you stated, "''A user named Severa requested that I be blocked,''" should've been interpreted as a clear denial of any connexion to the block. If you interpreted the 3RR notice as promoting, or causing, the block, this is your interpretation, and InShaneee's post above should clear about this misinterpretation. | |||
| Also, per InShaneee's abbreviation of your username, please note my username is not "Savera." Once I could understand as a typo, but twice, not so much. Thanks. -] (]) 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Severa, if you think I intentionally misspelled your username, you are mistaken, and quite obviously mistaken at that (the correct spelling is much more apt). Likewise, if you think that InShaneee accidentally made a mere spelling error by calling me "Ferry" instead of "Ferrylodge" then you are even more obviously mistaken. | |||
| ::If you want to nitpick endlessly about whether you "recommended consideration" of a block, as opposed to "requesting" a block, then fine, but I wish you would not clutter up my talk page with such minutuae, which obscures the main issues here (perhaps that is your goal). I can only hope that someone in this odd Misplaced Pages world will recognize your maneuverings for what they are, and will recognize your blatant slanting of the abortion page. | |||
| ::And after all this banter, InShaneee still has not addressed my two questions: (1) What is a user to do when another user refuses to engage in discussion? (2) Is it not true that user Severa violated the three revert rule?] 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let me answer the first question. If someone does not engage in discussion (I don't know if this assertion is true, but I shall assume so for the sake of answering the question), then you submit a report to ]. Yes, you will submit a complaint form. '''Under no circumstances should you edit war.''' I don't know about the second question; that is for InShaneee to answer. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the answer to the first question.] 07:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This may be unwelcome (and belated, I realize), but I think I can add a clarifying element to the discussion in this section. I believe much of the animosity between yourself and ] may have been initially caused by a misunderstanding over terminology. In an edit summary, Severa warned that "You've already crossed 3RR on this" and then later referred to that edit summary as a warning "that the editor ought to consider 3RR," which you apparently took to mean that Severa had notified "the Editor" (as in "an Administrator") to block you, or somesuch. However, Wikipedians are ALL "editors," and the the "editor" Severa was referring to having "warned" was actually you. I hope this helps. :) ] 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Carolfrog. That episode was certainly a learning experience, believe you me. My memory is a bit hazy now about the whole thing, but I think there were several sources of frustration from my point of view. No one would answer my repeated question as to whether Severa had violated the 3RR rule. I still have no answer. Also, everyone was criticizing me for not engaging in discussion before editing, when I was actually the one who did start discussion and repeatedly asked for others to join that discussion, and no one would do so until after I was blocked. So, it was just very frustrating. I do not recall whether I misunderstood the comment you refer to. In any event, I am not one to hold a grudge, and I try to approach each day as a new start. Unfortunately, with me and Severa, things just don't seem to go well.] 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==An Automated Message from ]== | |||
| Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. 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! ] 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)<!-- HagermanBot Auto-Tilde --> | |||
| ==An Automated Message from ]== | |||
| Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. 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! ] 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)<!-- HagermanBot Auto-Tilde --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <!--- The following message uses the text of Template:Uncategorized as its basis. ---> | |||
| The category you wrote, ], is ]. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories.] 23:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Abortion_by_region per discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Abortion#Hierarchy ] 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikiprojects you may like. == | |||
| Hello Ferrylodge. I saw that you mentioned that you are a patent attorney, so I was wondering whether you would be interested in working on ] and/or ]. --] 08:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Eastlaw, thanks for the invitation. However, I've already got 64 pages on my Misplaced Pages watchlist, plus another 10 on my Wikiquote watchlist. That's plenty for now. Maybe later on I'll get more involved. I'll tell you, however, that I do have concerns about the objectivity of Misplaced Pages's case summaries. It seems that some Misplaced Pages editors are providing very slanted summaries. I suspect that it might be wise for Misplaced Pages to identify the ten most significant Supreme Court cases each year, and then only summarize those. Most Supreme Court cases speak pretty well for themselves anyway, or at least they're supposed to.] 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fetal development== | |||
| Moving ] to ] would be logical. On the other hand, I'm not sure it would be entirely straightfoward, as "fetal development," in my experience, is generally an inclusive term. I don't necessarily think that, just because it includes the word "fetus," the description must thereby exclude the zygotic and embryonic stages. Doing a Google search for "fetal development" returns pages which certainly discuss the period prior to 8 weeks. I think most people are familiar with "fetal development" in the context of it describing all nine months. Perhaps you should propose the page move on ] or ] to see what other editors think. | |||
| -] (]) 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't worry about disturbing me from my Wikibreak. There were two messages on my Talk page within the space of an hour, so, I felt like tying up all the loose ends before breaking away anyway. | |||
| :Your move proposal reminds me of Tznkai's proposal to move ] to ] a while back. He wanted to help streamline the article, by creating a logical basis for merging out the coverage of miscarriage, because the majority of the article already covers induced abortion, not spontaneous ones. It was a good idea, in my opinion, but I and some other users objected to it on a technicality: that "abortion" was the more widely-known term than "induced abortion." Thus the more likely search term. I think the same could be said for "fetal development." | |||
| :Whatever the article is named, though, I think that there's a call for development at ]. I don't edit pregnancy-related articles much, but, I'd suggest developing ], ], and ] to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using fetal development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles (in this case, placing all the "eggs" in one basket would be a good thing). Sorry about the puns. -] (]) 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll wait and see if anyone objects at the Fetal Development talk page. As long as a "redirect" is installed at the Fetal Development page, I don't think anyone would have difficulty finding their way to a new Prenatal Development page. Keep in mind that "embryology" is just as likely a search term as "fetal development", and so turning them both into redirects would be no less appropriate than the way the ] article is now handled.] 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rehnquist== | |||
| You're right about the section on his Chief-Justiceship. It is ''horrible''. I'm working full time while studying for the bar, however, so I don't have all that much free time; I'll see if I can get the time to try my hand at improving that section soon. Thanks! ] 16:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| FYI: I suspect that ] and ] are the same person. (Compare their contribution pages for what I take to be strong circumstantial evidence.) Because there are legitimate reasons to have more than one account, because there has been no abuse so far, and because I don't wish to be accused of "wiki-stalking," I don't want to throw out any wild accusations of sockpuppetry. I do think, however, that it would be prudent to keep an eye on this situation. ] 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your kind words. I found editing that article to be a difficult (and time-consuming) experience. The problem with cranks – a word I've come to believe is accurate in this case – is that they tend to have a great deal more stubbornness than the rest of us. I'm glad you think I made some difference. Best wishes, ] 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Oh boy – I really need some help on the '']'' talk page. The same editor with whom we have both had unpleasant dealings is trying to justify the inclusion of a reference to (of all things!) ''Sandoval''. I don't understand what his justification is; I don't know whether he even ''has'' a justification; but in any case, your help would be greatly appreciated. Best, ] 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Bless your heart – you're doing yeoman's work over at ''Garrett''. For my part, I'm doing what I can over at ''Kimel''. With luck we'll be able to put these articles to bed, so to speak. ] 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This is getting really bad. I'm with you – I don't have any great problem with long articles, as long as they make sense. So perhaps you're right, and we should focus not simply on cutting irrelevant things down, but on improving what is already there. The problem is when the irrelevancies are, as a practical matter, inaccuracies. And yes, we should get help. I'm thinking about requesting mediation. What do you think? ] 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello there again. I'm going to request help through ] and will give you a link when I do so, so that you can comment there as well. ] 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK, thanks.] 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here it is: ]. ] 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Responded to you on my talk page. You should feel free to edit the RfC. ] 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, Hydro. Hi FerryLodge. How are you?] 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, Jim. Is there something you'd like to add to this discussion? If so, the best locus for that would probably be at the RfC (]). ] 18:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ferrylodge, can I get a second opinion on something? I have been told that "states' rights" is not a loaded term. See . Do you think that is correct? Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm very willing to concede the point if I am (I'm getting tired of dealing with Jimmuldrow, and indeed, my dealings with him make me wonder whether I shouldn't just leave Misplaced Pages altogether; perhaps it's more trouble than it's worth). In any case, I'd like a second opinion. Thanks! ] 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Hydriotaphia. You're doing great work, and I hope this absurdly prolonged haggling will be resolved soon. Yes, the term "states' rights" is a loaded term. See . It's a code word for segregation. It should not be used in describing a recent Supreme Court case unless the justices actually used the term. ] is a somewhat similar concept, but is not a loaded code word. I hope that helps.] 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've made some recent changes to the Sandoval article. I think it has a ways to go, but it's getting there. If you have time, please feel free to make corrections/additions/deletions etc. Best wishes and thanks for your help, ] 20:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello there, I responded to your most recent query at my talk page. Best wishes, ] 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello again, Ferrylodge. I responded to your comment at my talk page. Best wishes, ] 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I hope you're reading my edit summaries - I often leave comments about things that I don't understand, or that need to be fixed, in edit summaries. I'm not usually this grouchy - I hate working on this article :-) ] (]) 22:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yup, I too can't wait until this is over. I do read your edit summaries. For example, regarding the bolding of statute names, I rebolded it, and left my own edit summary contianing a link to that Misplaced Pages guideline. Cheers.] 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::ah, ha ! So statutes are bolded - now I know - never worked on a legal article before, never wanted to :-) ] (]) 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fried brain syndrome - I can't figure out how to fix the double "failed" here: The bill failed after the House and Senate failed to agree on compromise legislation. ] (]) 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll fix it.] 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can you cite the remaining paragraph in Justiciability (or remove the original research-y stuff) before Marskell goes through? I'd like for him to see a clean article that can be closed. ] (]) 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've cited the remaining paragraph in Justiciability, no problem. Thanks again for all the time and effort you put into this FAR, Sandy. I think it's a much more valuable Misplaced Pages resource now. Take care.] 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Want a new project for the cold weather? <grin> Now you can put all you learned about FAR to use on FAC! | |||
| ] | |||
| ] (]) 01:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sandy, I really appreciate the offer, but will have to take a rain check for the time being. First it was blogging, and then it was Misplaced Pages....now my law practice has gotten into dangerous shape, due to all of my hours on the internet. I've really got to be careful about becoming more deeply involved with Misplaced Pages. But please rest assured that the experience with this FAR has taught me a lot, and I will put it to good use as I continue to dabble with Misplaced Pages. And, in a few months, I hope to have my law practice back in good shape. ] 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Priorities, priorities :-) Good luck, ] (]) 04:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think you might benefit from reading ]. ] 04:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think Sandy has any POV problem. Why do you say that?] 09:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Re: Roe v. Wade public opinion, statement regarding counterargument does not argue. As a matter of logic, the same logic pro-life group uses to attack statistics applies to pro-choice arguments. That is an encyclopedic fact. | |||
| :I will continue this discussion at the . Please try to remember to sign your name when commenting. Thanks.] 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Embryo == | |||
| It's more a matter of experience than a specific citation. My professional training is in botany, so I am well aware of the true scope that can be applied to the term in biology. My personal experience, though, is that the majority of books titled "Embryology" treat ''only'' vertebrate embryology (and sea urchins). There are no general books on embryology that treat both plant and animal embryo development. (If you know of such a book, I would be ''very'' interested to know about it.) But as a result, when biologists talk about "the embryo" they almost always imply vertebrate embryo, and blithely forget that the term encompasses much more. --] 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yes. Most of the time biologists "forget" that the term embryo includes other organisms besides vertebrates. It's the same phenomenon that leads published to produce books with titles like ''Our Native Birds'', without identifying anywhere who "our" refers to. I've also seen an ''Encyclopedia of Animals'' that only included mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, even though the term "animals" includes many more organisms. | |||
| ==Civility== | |||
| :<small> Moved from ]</small> | |||
| Ferrylodge, again I caution you about civility and insults to Severa. Accusing her by implication of violating OWN and NPOV is absurd. She is a highly experienced editor with no stain on her reputation. Referring someone with her level of experience to basic policy pages is trolling. Stop it. As regards the articles, the onus is on you, as the one desiring to make changes, to discuss and gain support on talk for your desired changes. I suggest you do so, rather than spend your time in ''ad hominem'' attacks on editors who know policy far better than most editors. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Accusing me of being a troll is absurd.] 18:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am informing you that pointing a highly respected and experienced editor such as Severa to basic policies is considered trolling. Whether you choose to continue to do this, now that you are aware, is your choice. Simply dismissing a caution from an administrator as "absurd" does not address the concerns raised. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not dismissing what you've said. I've replied to what you have said, and I hope you will reconsider your accusations.] 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Calling a caution an accusation is trolling; your treatment of Severa is trolling; your "response" was not about how your repeated injunctions for Severa to read WP:OWN practically every time she disagrees with your edits is or is not trolling, it was an absolute dismissal. There is nothing to reconsider. You have given me no reasons why doing so might ''not'' be considered trolling. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would appreciate if you would stick to the content of the article, KillerChihuahua, instead of these repeated digressions. You said: "Referring someone with her level of experience to basic policy pages is trolling." Let's just leave it at that, and allow other editors to decide if this is an "accusation" (which you deny). You say I have asked "Severa to read WP:OWN practically every time she disagrees with your edits." That is false. I have asked her to read that "WP" perhaps twice in the past year, while she has objected to my edits many more times than that. Even an experienced editor can benefit from a refreshing look at Misplaced Pages policies.] 18:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <center>'''''This is the point at which the discussion was moved from the ] talk page.'''''</center> | |||
| (undent) There is a difference between disagreement and denial. Denial implies someone has a handle on the Truth, and someone else is denying that Truth. I assure you this is a disagreement. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. However, there are also factual matters involved. As they say, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.] 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I was reading this discussion, and I agree with Ferrylodge that accusing him of being a troll is absurd. I also didn't notice any ''ad hominem'' attacks on Severa from him. So, KillerChihuahua, try to calm, please. ] 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am quite calm. Apparently you didn't read the entire discussion, because the rudeness in this instance was to me, not Severa. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh never mind - that account has been indef blocked as a troll. Now, that's funny in a twisted sort of way. Ironic, even. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Gen. von Klinkerhoffen, we hardly knew ye. :-) It's kind of funny what's going on at the ] page. Apparently, Misplaced Pages is diligently searching for the most impressive, sexiest, well-endowed, atypical photograph as possible, to illustrate that page. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen's sensibilities were understandably offended. ] 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I generally stay away from the sex related articles. I know Dalbury (among others) watches those - he's a stronger man than I am, Gunga Din, because between the self-appointed censors and the shock-pushing edit warriors, those articles are aways a battleground. I have my hands full with Abortion, Religion, and ID and pseudoscience articles. Not to mention Tupac Shakur, sigh. The good news is we don't currently ahve an edit warrior of the calibre of G&E (Abortion is MURDER) on the Abortion articles right now. (crosses fingers and toes.) ]<sup>]</sup> 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Surely you're not arguing that it never is.] 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) Good grief, must you take everything as an opportunity to assume an argument? I was only referring to the editors who are one step up from the vandals who replace every instance of the word "abortion" with the word "murder" - its a very common vandalistic edit to the article. Further, my opinion on whether abortion is murder or not is completely irrelevant, as is yours - NPOV, yes? Not POV. I've been accused of being right wing, left wing, pro and anti abortion, pro and anti censorship - so I am doing a good job. Oh I forgot to tell you I'm a Darwinist atheist as well as a Bible-thumping creationist - I'm very ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for confirming.] 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::? Confirming what? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Confirming that, "you're not arguing that it never is."] 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Bait? ] 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Jim, are you trying to say something?] 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Embryology and civility == | |||
| Thanks for your words of encouragement. I've been trying to avoid you on purpose due to me getting stress out over our fetus discussion. I edit wikipedia for fun and hopefully improve the quality of wikipedia. I do not edit wikipedia to become emotional or get stressed out, so I'd rather just get up and leave a discussion rather than deal with conflict that gets TOO heated. On the embryo discussion, things were getting heated, and perhaps I was being a bit dramatic, but I did not want to be involved with that. It's one thing to disagree, but to get defensive and start discussing each other's personal editing over the content isn't helpful (except on user talk pages). I was not going to take part in any of that, plus I've been trying to avoid you anyway. I guess we got off on a bad foot, and never fully resolved anything so there is possibly still bad vibes between us (though I've been trying to forget and move on and assume good faith and all that). So, just wanted to thank you for your comment and explain a little further my position regarding conflict. And a few words of advice. Tone can be hard to transmit over the internet. You may not realize it, but you sometimes come off sounding defensive, harsh, cold and cocky. If someone says something that upsets you, or something personal about you, you may want to consider taking it to their user talk, or just being the bigger person and ignoring it completely. I know, easier said that done. Good luck! | |||
| P.S. according to wikipedia, "Microbiology ''is'' the study of microorganisms".;P-] 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for most of that, Andrew C. :-) | |||
| :I too am not here to become emotional or get stressed out. But I'm not here for fun either. I'd like to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages, since it's becoming an increasingly prominent source of information. As you no doubt agree, the info should be neutral, and should satisfy people's desire for free and accurate knowledge. This is a great concept in principle --- but, the devil is in the details, unfortunately. What would be nice would be to (1) get some pages into good shape, and (2) then just sit back and try to guard them from lousy edits. The sooner I get from the first step to the second, the happier I'll be (and the happier everyone else will be, I suspect). | |||
| :KillerChihuahua transferred a whole lot of stuff from the abortion discussion to my talk page today, which I thought improved the abortion discussion page immensely, although maybe it doesn't make me look any better to have such comments cluttering up my talk page. But I agree that all of the accusations and stuff have no place at an article talk page. I'll try harder next time to head that off by suggesting it be moved to the other person's talk page. But if it's moved to here at my talk page, won't it just make me look bad to have all that namecalling and accusatory stuff here? | |||
| :By the way, you’re right, microbiology is the study of microorganisms. I was wrong about that, sorry. I think we can both agree that there should be no Misplaced Pages page on microorganismology. | |||
| :However, just for the record, I think you sometimes come off sounding condescending, accusatory, brash, narrow-minded, and paranoid. :-) | |||
| :The thing about embryology is no huge deal. I still think it's a redundant article that will lead to confusion, but there's no issue (yet) about factual accuracy in the article content. So, I'm not fuming about the lack of consensus to merge that page with another. KillerChihuahua actually made the best arguments against a merger, IMHO. But the stuff at the abortion page today is not something I'm inclined to let go of, because there are serious issues about factual accuracy, and they must be addressed. | |||
| :Anyway, thanks again for your comment. I've never been to Richmond, but maybe someday. We can beat each other up in person! :-) ] 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::FYI, its a rare user who does not have any discussion of concerns of civility, NPOV, etc at one time or another on their talk page. IME, if you just leave them and archive as appropriately, they do no harm to your reputation whatsoever - although removing them does, because it is seen as indicating you Cannot Work Well With Others, or you are Hiding something. Trust me, the discussion above is not a Big Deal. Hope this reassures. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks. And just for the record, I have never tried to remove anything from this talk page.] 16:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And for the record, you're well within your rights to remove anything you want, for any reason or no reason. The rules were formerly that vandalism warnings could not be removed, but that was used as a form of harassment so now that's been changed. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Following of other users== | |||
| ''Copied from ].''<br> | |||
| 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 ]. 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. ] might be interested in learning about our shared concern over your "" 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. -] (]) 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Clearly your detective work ] has been appropriate bearing in mind what seems to be going on here. ] really needs to calm down and take a close look at this because she looks like she is picking all manner of fights over a problem she is responsible for starting by reverting edits without explanation. This has happened so often by the looks of things that it looks like ] has been editing too long and has gotten into habits that look like ] going on ]. Maybe she is suffering burnout and should take a rest. I posted this above, but it looks more apt here:- | |||
| ::''Thank you ] for your intervention elsewhere. There is further dialogue on that related matter here ].'' ''The double standards are interesting. Excuse me if I do not wait around to find out what happens here (and there).'' | |||
| ::] 11:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I don't want to get involved in this argument, but I'd just like to point out that Jimmuldrow's accusation of "shadowing" is, in my opinion, misplaced. Ferrylodge, from what I could tell, never came even close to harassing or stalking Jimmuldrow. Respectfully, ] 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fetus photograph== | |||
| There ya go. Sorry for the confusion. ] 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Fetus == | |||
| Things are getting pretty heated in your last reply over at fetus. I am not going to respond there because it is getting off topic. I asked you a question, and instead of answering it, you respond with 2 questions. And now we are being childish "NO, you answer my question first," "Not before you answer mine". | |||
| Next, I never said plagiarism. Not even when I first ]. You said that you were the creator of that text, and as the creator, you are free to release it under the GFDL here at wikipedia, so 26 January I said "Ok, I retract my copyright infringement claims". | |||
| Nothing I said was a lie, nor slanderous. Your webpage (which I guess you took down because I get a 404 error) had a collection of pro-life quotes and 'facts' you cherry picked to be favorable to your positions. There were no pro-choice quotes. The topic was clearly abortion "THE A WORD: QUOTATIONS ABOUT ABORTION", and if one had to choose pro-choice or pro-life, I believe most reasonable people would assess the quotes on that page painting a "pro-life" picture. The nuances in your personal view did not come through on that webpage. If you are honestly offended that your collection of pro-life quotes lead me to believe that the page was "pro-life", I apologize and I won't call it "pro-life" again. But you can't call me a liar or a slanderer because I read "t seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime." and "I consider it a great honor to die, possibly die, for having defended innocent human beings" and drew the conclusion "pro-life". | |||
| As for the topic at hand, under the spirit of ], the images on other articles shouldn't necessarily be precedent. My point is not to argue over whether the image is POV or not, but to acknowledge that 3 editors have found objections to the image, and more 2 editors agreed that it could be improved upon. My suggestion was to stop arguing over the POV and to create this 'better' image that basically everyone suggested (a ruler instead of a hand). I asked if this solution would be ok to you, and I ask it again. We can end this right here. The majority agreed that a ruler is better than a hand. I can create that image using photoshop. If you approve it, we have a super-consensus. We have an image that everyone can agree with. -] 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Andrew C., I said that your question was ridiculous. Do I also have to explicitly answer "no" in order for you to deduce my answer to the question? | |||
| :You insinuated plagiarism. Here's what you said most recently, echoing what you've said over and over: "You inserted text verbatim from your pro-life website." How do you think that sounds to people who don't know anything more about the issue? It sounds like an accusation. More particularly, it sounds like an accusation of plagiarism. Moreover, it is false. | |||
| :Because you slime me in generalities, I did not know that you were referring to "THE A WORD: QUOTATIONS ABOUT ABORTION", rather than to the blog confirmthem or the essay . Yes, I did take down the site "THE A WORD: QUOTATIONS ABOUT ABORTION", because all of the pertinent quotes are now at WikiQuote, and there is no longer any reason to maintain that site. All it was was a list of quotations, some from pro-life sources, some from pro-choice sources (e.g. the majority SCOTUS decision in Planned Parenthood). I am sick and tired of you making your accusatory statements, insinuating plagiarism, incorrectly characterizing my political views, et cetera. I have nothing to defend. The references that I sought to insert into the article included a New York Times article. You don't mention that in your repeated accusations do you? They were perfectly valid references. Just because something is mentioned at a pro-life site or a pro-choice site or some other site does not mean that it is false. You are hurling irrelevant insults at me every single day of my life, and I want you to please think about what you are doing and just back off. All I am trying to do is help create a balanced and informative article, and every time I insert a fact that might possibly be construed as supporting an argument with which you disgree, you cry POV. You have got to stop this. | |||
| :You know that I wrote an article . You know what it says. Please stop misprepresenting my views. | |||
| :As for the photo of the fetus in the hand, I don't see why to pursue that discussion here, when the fetus talk page seems like the better place for it.] 04:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why do you think I should respect your request to not use a certain name when referring to you, when you ignored my request for you to do the same when referring to me? (just for the record, I noted your concern, and I said I would cease and I apologized.) I explained why I thought your site was "pro-life". I never once called you "pro-life", but I did say that webpage was "pro-life" (and I explained why above). I also said I would stop doing that if it bothered you, which it does. I made it clear that I dropped the plagiarism accusations months ago. By saying the webpage was ''yours'', I thought it was clear that the content was yours, and you were free to release it to wikipedia per the GFDL. I personally believed it was clear that my 'charge' wasn't of plagiarism, but of adding partisan information in an otherwise neutral, scientific article. You asked why everything was a battle on that page, and I tried to hold a mirror up. Sorry that didn't work, but instead turned your wrath towards me. I honestly apologize for upsetting you. I never, ever intended to insult you, or slander you, or wish you harm in any way. If my tone came across poorly over the internet, or if I temporarily lost my cool, I sincerely apologize. I am very hard trying to work with you. Again, I apologize.-] 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Andrew c, I don't know what you are referring to; when did you ask me to stop referring to you as "andrew c"? I still find it difficult to understand why you repeatedly said that I "copied" material from somewhere. I hope you won't keep doing it. People unfamiliar with the background will take it as an accusation of plagiarism even if you don't mean it that way. As I recall, the only thing that I "copied" was material that I researched and wrote in the first place, so I see absolutely no point in saying that I copied it, unless you were trying to make me appear to be a copycat, which I am not. And for the millionth time, a legitimate quote about a legitimate scientific fact should not be tainted by where it may have been previously mentioned. You have repeatedly said that the fetus article must be POV because I have a POV. That is a non sequiter. Likewise, it is a non sequiter that a fact must be POV because it was mentioned at a website that has a POV. These non sequiters, this guilt by association, is otherwise known as smearing, and it's not been pleasant. I've tried very hard to work with you too.] 08:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please see ] I wrote '' Also, could you please not call me "Andrew C." my user name is "Andrew c", note the lack of capitalization and punctuation. Thanks.-Andrew c 03:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)'' And judging by your change in how you address me in your last reply, it seems like you read that, so I do not understand your question ''when did you ask me to stop referring to you as "andrew c"? '' Again, I apologize for the connotations associated with the word "copied". I feel like I adequately explained the reason why I used the term, and the connotations I associated with it. However, you bring it up again so is there something specific you would like to talk about regarding my claim about your initial edits to ], or can you accept an apology from me and we'll both let our edits from a month and a half ago rest.-] 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would very much like to let matters rest, except that your attitude regarding "copying from his pro-life advocacy site" continues as strong as ever, in other forms. The attitude of non sequiters and smearing has not stopped. | |||
| :::::Just consider the fetus-in-hand photo. You declined to explain your own reasons, and instead you endorsed the views of certain other editors (including Severa and SheffieldSteel and Citicat) that were completely non sequiters to say the least: one or the other of them said the photo is bad because the adult is white instead of black (an irrelevant smear), and because the adult is married instead of single or gay (another irrelevant smear), and because the photo evokes an emotional response (irrelevant because many factual photos at Misplaced Pages evoke an emotional response), and because an "adult" hand has no place at a fetus article (another irrelevancy because the fetus article already has sections comparing adults to fetuses), and because of the occupation and POV of the person who took the picture (again, irrelevant), et cetera, et cetera. I still feel like I'm battling your POV innuendo. And speaking of irrelevancies, the difference between "Andrew C." and "Andrew c" and "andrew C." and "andrew c" was incredibly trivial, and there was obviously nothing intentional on my part.] 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Disputes with other editors == | |||
| Hi, Ferrylodge. I hoped to be properly back editing earlier this week, but it didn't work out. I'm still busy. I just want to stress that most of the editors you seem to be in dispute with have a history of working respectfully with editors who hold the opposite POVs. It ''is'' difficult for people to remain calm when dealing with content disputes in controversial matters, and subjects relating to abortion tend to trigger emotional responses. From my own experience, I'd say that if you hold pro-life views and want to gain respect from other editors (which is absolutely possible), you have to be ''more'' civil, and ''more'' forgiving. If someone says something that you think is unjust, well, it doesn't really matter in the great scale of things. Ignore it, and continue to discuss article content. | |||
| Regarding the dispute about your turning up at other people's talk page, I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you appeared on mine after KillerChihuahua had posted there. I had made a post to an abortion-related page, and it's perfectly reasonable that you came to look at my page afterwards. I've done the same thing myself, and I state again that you're perfectly welcome to post on my page. I would, however, advise you against making a habit of turning up at other user talk pages where people you're in dispute with have posted. It's not forbidden, unless it reaches a level that can be reasonably regarded as stalking, but it's at least insensitive. I remember when I first came across SlimVirgin. She had appeared at an article that I was heavily involved with (]), and on one occasion shortly after, I wanted to check if she was online, for some (legitimate) reason, so I looked at her contributions, and saw that she was editing ] (I think that was what it was). The article looked interesting, and I immediately saw some changes that I wanted to make. However, I did ''not'' jump straight in and edit, because I thought it might look as if I was following her. So I added Chocolate to my watchlist, so that it would appear in front of me from time to time and I could edit it at some later stage. (I can't remember if I ever did!) | |||
| On another matter, I get the impression from some posts you have made that you now regret having put some personal information on your user page. I have deleted the page, and have restored only the final version. I didn't ask your approval beforehand, because I didn't want to draw attention to it by posting a public message saying "HEY, I CAN WORK OUT YOUR REAL NAME FROM INFORMATION IN THE HISTORY OF YOUR USER PAGE. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DELETE IT NEXT TIME I'M ONLINE?" If you didn't want me to delete it, just let me know, and I'll undelete all the early versions. | |||
| One final thing, do be careful not to mix up vandalism with content dispute. Replacing an image with another image, even if it hasn't been discussed, or if it goes against consensus, is definitely not vandalism, unless, of course, the image is completely irrelevant to the article. (I've seen editors replacing the image of ] with one of a chimpanzee, or, more sickeningly, replacing the image of ] with one of a lettuce.) Unless you feel that you could justifiably report something at ], you shouldn't call it vandalism. Regards. ]] 13:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, Musical Linguist. It's very kind of you to take the time to reply to my request for input, and it's much appreciated. Just a few brief replies. | |||
| :I haven't made a habit of turning up at other user talk pages where people I'm in dispute with have posted. Maybe that's happened five times, and often because I'm being discussed. I agree it's not something that should become a habit. | |||
| :I don't know the detailed histories of the people I have been in dispute with, and I'm sure you are correct that they have all worked cooperatively with other editors having differing views in other contexts. I will do my best to work cooperatively with them in the future, but of course it's a two-way street. If they have worked cooperatively with other users having different views on the abortion-related material, it very much appears to me that those other users have allowed a great deal of non-neutral info to slip by them, and I really do get some satisfaction from making corrections even if doing so requires some loud insistence on my part (it would be preferable if the loud insistence were not needed). | |||
| :Thanks, by the way, for deleting the page in question, and restoring only the final version. I have no regrets that it was there, for example because it came in handy when I was accused of plagiarism (e.g. to show that I had actually written the material in question). Unfortunately, some people were beginning to use my personal name instead of my screen name, which I did not expect, and which can be very confusing for other users. | |||
| :Regarding confusing vandalism with content dispute, the issue as I saw it was making an edit based on a dishonest edit summary. To say in an edit summary that an edit (removal of a photo) had been discussed and approved was basically not honest, IMHO. There had been no discussion at the talk page of the article being edited. Regards. ] 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:49, 14 March 2007
Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007.