Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 17 December 2007

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. There is a lot to learn, so here are some links to pages that will help you to navigate through the site, get to know the most important policies and guidelines, and develop your editing skills:
The basics Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Learn from others Glossary of Misplaced Pages terminology Questions and answers Frequently Asked Questions Copyright FAQ Where to ask a question Department directory Village pump Editor's Index Why was my page deleted?	The community Community Portal Administrators' noticeboard WikiProjects Maintenance Civility How to use talk pages Resolving disputes Creating articles Starting a new page Naming conventions Manual of Style Cite your sources with footnotes Using categories How to develop an article	Policies and guidelines Notability and Verifiability Copyright violations No original research Neutral Point of View What Misplaced Pages is not External links Ownership of articles User page guidelines Deletion policy About images Uploading images Copyright tags Image use policy Upload wizard
When you need to ask a question or seek assistance, you can visit pages such as the Help Desk, Editor Assistance or the New Contributors' Help page. They all fulfill different rôles depending on what kind of help you need. If you would like direct access to an experienced editor, you can join the adopt-a-user project or just approach someone directly via their discussion page. Always sign whenever you leave a comment by using four tildes (~~~~) or . Whenever you edit a page, even if the edit is minor, you should include a descriptive edit summary. I hope that you find Misplaced Pages to be a rewarding experience. – Adrian M. H. 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Have you read WP:TALK? Your edits to Talk:Post-abortion syndrome have not been entirely productive. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a battle ground. We should all remember to stay civil and to assume good faith. It is never appropriate to start off a dialog on a talk page by calling editors with whom you disagree "thought police". You should tone down your comments, remember to comment on content, not editors, and to generally be polite and work with the community. If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask. Continued disruption and incivility could get you blocked. So sit back, relax, and remember that wikipedia is a community and we work together here (even with those with whom we disagree). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c  17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Thought Police" is rather mild, I thought. Did you bother reading the discussion of anon and others saying they wanted to purge references to peer reviewed studies simply because critics of the Elliot Institute and Reardon accuse them of bias?

To Quote:

In theory, I agree with you. However, the director of the Elliot Institute (David Reardon) is the author of a majority of the "studies" referenced in the wiki article. The question we should probably answer is - should we purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon?--131.216.41.16 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes why not? We can only use reliable, neutral sources here. Of course it might be different when we specifically say "pro-life organizations" or "proponents of PAS" claim that so and so are the symptoms. mirageinred 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Though, I think we will have to be vigilant against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article. --131.216.41.16 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Openly discussing an effort to "purge" information from peer reviewed medical journals because one of the author's is pro-life (and therefore "biased" against the pro-choice POV of the editors) should itself be grounds for blocking these "editors" who are "viligent against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article."

This is clearly censorship intended to control which peer reviewed studies will be presented to readers. And if they can't censor, they want to create a ghetto for studies they want to discredit.

See also Anons absurd edits of David Reardon in which Anon is front loading the biography with attacks on Reardon's associations and continually ignores the points in my discussion -- see "Pro-Life Activist" section which anon has recently broken into a half dozen sections because it got so long.

I've been very civil with Anon over the David Reardon biography, despite some outright weird assertions (like the Elliot Institute has no buildings) but when I see Anon and miraginred openly discussing the purging of dozens of peer reviewed articles relevent to the subject post-abortion syndrome it is really frustrating to see how ideologues can destroy the purpose of Misplaced Pages.Strider12 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Hello. I've removed the NPOV tag from post-abortion syndrome for now. The tag is a last resort to be placed after good-faith efforts to address NPOV concerns on the article talk page have reached an impasse. I've not seen such a good-faith effort thus far on your part, and I'd encourage you to address your concerns specifically and civilly on the article talk page before tagging the article. I won't repeat the warning to focus on content rather than contributors and avoid personal attacks - as you've removed the prior warnings from your talk page, I'll assume you've read the relevant policies. MastCell 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring and 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Reardon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. MastCell 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior

OK, maybe I've been beating around the bush too much, so I'm going to be direct. You continually refer to edits you dislike as efforts to "purge" the encyclopedia of valuable information for ideological reasons. Recently, you have taken to capitalizing the word "PURGE" in many of your edit summaries and talk page comments. Please discuss content issues civilly, and refrain from shouting in all caps, from attacking other editors, and from imputing malicious motivations to editors with whom you disagree. If you continue to be unable to comport yourself in an acceptable manner, I will ask for outside review of your conduct. MastCell 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your invitation

Thank you for thinking of me. I'll think it over for a few days before deciding but it doesn't seem to me that too much is broken in the article. It's just got a bit strange in the intro. --ROGER DAVIES  18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having thought it over, it's thanks but no thanks. I've got way too much on my plate to provide the intensive involvement that this will probably require and I'm not particularly interested in the subject matter. If it was a quick in and out, I'd do it but the augurs suggest a less auspicious outcome. --ROGER DAVIES  17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

As much as I appreciate and agree with absolutely every word you are saying (you are correct, people are happy to scream that Misplaced Pages is not censored except for where it might hurt someone's feelings - i.e., abortion): this is canvassing and explicitly not allowed by policy. Please take care not to do it in the future. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give you (Strider) a huge benefit of the doubt and assume that you were unaware that canvassing at least 7 selected editors to "jump in" on your side of a "revert war" against "vigilant purgers" is a massive violation of several of Misplaced Pages's core principles and a clear indiciation of bad faith on your part. Please be aware, though, that you're not really that new anymore, and that you've had ample time to look at how things are done here and what the minimum standard of behavior is. So far things are actively going in the wrong direction.

I have no desire to "purge" information, but I also feel pretty strongly that Misplaced Pages is not a venue for advocacy nor a battleground. Also that Misplaced Pages aims to summarize the current state of human knowledge and represent views in proportion to their acceptance by experts in the field. On both of these scores, post-abortion syndrome needs to be covered in the context of the fact that its existence is not recognized by the medical community.

If you want outside input (which I think is a good idea), then you have the following options:

• WP:RfC: You filed one, but you need to leave it open for outsiders to comment rather than immediately filling it with more of the same argument we've been having.
• Ask for input from related WikiProjects. I asked the Clinical Medicine WikiProject for input, though given the degenerated tone of the discussion I doubt many neutral folks will be interested in getting in the line of fire. We could also notify the Abortion WikiProject.
• I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, again, and suggest you read WP:CANVASS (as The Evil Spartan has suggested) before soliciting any more "help". This is basically the last time I'm going to be willing to overlook failures to live up to the site's standards, though - I'm very close to asking for community feedback on restricting you from these topics if you're not able to act within the site's policies, as you've now had time to familiarize yourself with them. MastCell 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I was unfamiliar with the Canvassing page. Thanks for pointing it out.

2. In most contexts, seven is considered a small number, which is allowed.

3. I was asking for intervention on the talk page, specifically on the issue of the effort of many editors to delete peer reviewed journals articles.

4. I don't believe I contacted Evil Spartan, so I don't see how he has a complaint that I canvassed (spammed) him.

5. Aside from myself, the bulk of the editors clearly defend abortion and are arguing that post-abortion problems are a myth. Based on review of the edits made over the last month by many who insert peer reviewed cites that go against the pro-abortion view, these "vigilent" editors are purgint the material and openly conspiring to block over a dozen studies in peer reviewed journals they consider tainted. I believe outside editors would be more objective and help to remind them of the proper standards.

6. It appears the Canvassing page allows for limited invites, as have done and I believe I am well within the guidelines.

But thanks again for keeping track of me and giving me your friendly warnings.Strider12 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think your actions don't violate WP:CANVASS, or that you're not violating the spirit of WP:3RR with extraordinary consistency, you're incorrect. If you won't listen to me because you perceive me as an abortion apologist or Stalinist, then at least listen to The Evil Spartan below. MastCell 16:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

Strider, your edit warring has you >< close to a block. I don't say this because I disagree with you, but because you just keep reverting. You've received a ton of warnings. Stop. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notice

Hello Strider12. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. MastCell 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegations

If you truly believe that I am one of many sockpuppets arrayed against you on the David Reardon page (), then as you've been told repeatedly, the correct course of action is to file a report at the suspected sockpuppet noticeboard or a request for checkuser. I would invite you to consider the alternate possibility, though, that your edits are simply unacceptable to a wide range of editors on the article in question, for the reasons that have been articulated at length on the article talk page. In that context, your continual casting about for a stick to hit your adversaries with (sockpuppetry, vandalism, "purging", enthusiasm for abortions) is counterproductive and inimical to consensus-building. MastCell 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not been told anything repeatedly about sockpuppetry or reports. I do notice that a very few individuals take turns reverting everythin I do and reinserting the same text...in at least one case, text that included two repeated copies of the same paragraph...clearly an editing error. I've not made any accusations, only raised a question. In part this was due to many days of back and forth with anononymous 131.... who suddenly went quite and you appeared to take his or her place to argue for deletion of material from peer reveiwed sources on similar grounds. Perhaps this is incidental, or you both work for Planned Parenthood to keep these pages running along corporate lines, or your the same person. I don't know. But I do know that there is not a "wide range of editors" on these articles as anyone, like myself, who has a critical view of abortion who makes edits or contributrions will quickly see their contributions erased by a small cohort of abortion defenders who are policing these articles.

I notice, for example, that as an experienced editor who should know that peer reviewd studies should never be excluded from an article, you have not weighed in on the post-abortion syndrome to my observation that the Reardon studies should not have been purged and should be included. POV selective edits?Strider12 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. The reason that your edits are reverted is not because you're facing sockpuppets, or because everyone else works for Planned Parenthood. The reason is that you are utterly refractory to making the smallest concession toward understanding Misplaced Pages's policies and functioning within them. Even editors who explicitly agree with your stance on abortion issues have warned you about your approach, yet you continue to rationalize away the feedback you receive. It's a bit ironic to be accused of a conflict of interest by an obvious single-purpose account with an agenda such as yourself. Other comments you've made lead me to believe that you, in particular, ought not to throw conflict-of-interest stones from your glass balcony. In any case, I've come to believe that I'm wasting my time attempting to engage with you, so I will be shunning you until you manage to edit collaboratively and within policy, and without making personal attacks. MastCell 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warning

You have basically vandalized Post-abortion syndrome with this edit. I know you may be frustrated with the situation, but you should know better than the add personal commentary to the actual article. Using the second person and trying to tell the reader what to due, while alluding to some strawman "purging" is simply not encyclopedic any way you look at it. Also, such colorful and unencyclopedic language such as "With astounding precognition" is also not helpful. Please do not disrupt articles, or edit to make a WP:POINT, or you could find yourself blocked. Thanks.-Andrew c  21:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

COI

Hi Strider. I gather that you're feeling a bit frustrated right now. I'm afraid I'm not going to make things better. I've been reading your user page. My question is does this:

While Misplaced Pages gives no priorty to experts, this is a subject about which I firmly believe I know far more than most (or all) of the editors who are "contributing" to these articles.

In fact, I have been a peer reviewer several top medical journals on studies related to abortion and mental health, including some cited in post-abortion syndrome that have been published in top medical journals, including some cited in the and am very familiar with the literature. I have heard many or most of the primary people on this subject speak at APA conferences. And I am familiar with most of David Reardon's works, and have been recently am getting more familiar with them as I have been forced by edit warring to provide justification for every little correction of attackes and distortions leveled against him by attackers. I have also heard Reardon speak and agree with an editor (otherwise hostile to Reardon) that he is truly compassionate, truly cares about women, and is worth listening to. (See other editor's comments here >12 Audio of Reardon Reardon has done much to listen to women and to validate that their own experiences and beliefs about how abortion has affected their lives have meaning and deserve to heard. For many post-abortive women, he is a hero.

As an accepted peer reviewer with experience in this field I can attest to the fact that Reardon is accepted as an expert in this field.

suggest a WP:COI? Because, respectfully, it seems as if you are rather close to the subject. Given your edit history on Post-abortion syndrome, I was wondering if you might respond to the possibility of a conflict of interest. Thank you for your time. Phyesalis (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no conflicts of interest as defined by the letter or spirit of WP:COI. Clearly COI does not preclude contributions by people with expertise....indeed, expertises is clearly preferable...especially in this case where it is evident that there are people who have merely read an article or two in New York Times Magazine or the Boston Globe and believe they know enough to change, alter, delete, or purge articles of material that disagrees with their POV. Perhaps you should poll those who are busy purging the article if peer reviewed material to see if they have conflicts of interest as paid employees of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NAF, the APA, or other organizations that lobby for abortion and are insistent on denying the mental health effects of abortion. That would be very helpful! Thanks. (I'm looking forward to your support regarding the "Proper WEIGHT" issue and "Reliable Sources -- Wikipeida Policy re Reardon Studies." As these are both objective standards, this would be a good opportunity for you to show that you have no COI. -- Strider12 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)