User talk:Severa/archive3

Fetal Rights

I noticed you put a deletion notice on the fetal rights page. The neutrality of the article had already been discussed by another moderator and it was decided after sufficient revision that the page was not POV. Also you mentioned that the page was "skeletal and unsourced." However, the External Links section fairly thoroughly sources the page. So I am not certain what your reasons are for saying this. Since the neutrality issues had been resolved earlier and the page is sourced fairly well, why is the page being considered for deletion?

Jfraatz 21:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

AfD

Thank you for your comments. You were right about the references vs. external links thing. Someone fized that now. As for the independent existence of the fetal rights article. I am not sure if merging it with fetal protection would be good. Fetal protection seems to be more narrow in its scope than fetal rights and less well known as a term than fetal rights. Also the fetal protection page seems to be somewhat POV in that it assumes such laws are designed for the purpose of providing fetuses with personhood status when there stated aims are much more mundane. Also as for the usage of unborn child, when I originally started the page I used fetus and unborn child interchangeably. I figured that if I used one term in exclusion to the other the page could be viewed as biased so I used them both. The rationale behind this was that many pro-life people viewed the common usage of the term "fetus" to artificially dehumanizing. Whereas many pro-choice people viewed the common usage of the term "unborn child" to be artificially emotionalizing. I don't view either term is artificially biased and from my experience people who do not have strong opinions on either fetal rights or abortion to not care which term is used. Just a thought.

Thank you. Pax Jfraatz 14:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Fetal Rights Suggestions

I like your suggested outline. I was planning to eventually add other parts to the article and perhaps restructure the fetal rights in law section a bit once I found a way of classifing the laws. Your classificaton system looks a bit like what I was looking for. Thanks! BTW I've been trying to modify the article to adress some of its criticisms on the AfD discussion page. Also I took your suggestion on fetal protection into consideration. I decided the fetal rights topic would probably be to broad for fetal protection. However, I decided to turn the section on the Laci & Connor Law into a section on fetal protection since the law was an example of a fetal protection law. I put in a little extra material on these laws but I plan to put in more substantial material soon as well.

Thank You. Pax. Jfraatz 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Re: Civil

Just wanted to know how my post on the Talk:Abortion page didn't seem to meet your criteria for being civil. Please advise. Somnabot 23:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the "whining", I understand the use of the word was somewhat childish, but looking at Talv's contribution to the discussion, it was blatantly apparant that the guy/girl had their blinders on. They would disregard what the counter-argument focused on, and state that the article was biased over and over again. I understand you are a major contributor to the Abortion article, and I know how it feels when others do what they do. Thanks for calling me back to civility. Somnabot 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

fetal rights page odd question about

I noticed on the fetal rights page in the section regarding fetal rights and abortion you changed the "usually" back to "sometimes". The reason I had previously changed it was that it seemed denoted that there were other significant reasons for opposing abortion other than fetal rights. I thought this was a little odd because I haven't heard of anti-abortion proponents using any other reason but that. I have heard of foreign countries with negative population growth rates try to discourage for abortion to stabilize the national growth rate. However this hasn't been the primary stated reason for opposing abortion given by anti-abortion advocates. You said it was disingenious to assume otherwise. However, most anti-abortion people not knowing about the foreign countries growth rate policies would probaly consider that to be POV since they would see it as reading intentions into them which they would see as biased.

I changed it back "usually" in the interests of neutrality to prevent any readers from accusing the page of being POV and because it is more accurate given that national growth policies are usually not the most frequently given reason.

Thanks. Pax Jfraatz 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

WP 3RR and WP RS

I am not certain why you are using bringing these up.

WP 3RR

I wasn't meaning to start an edit war I was just reverting it to what it was until proof was given showing that other opposition to abortion from other viewpoints were significant factors in public opinion. Sorry for any misunderstanding here.

WP RS

What was wrong with the polls I used? I thought they were fairly comprehensive.

Thanks again. Pax Jfraatz 23:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Jane Austen: IMHO trivial links

Hi, Severa. I want to discuss the IMHO trivial or non-notable links which you restored in Jane Austen. Please discuss on the article's Talk page. Thanks. -- 201.51.231.141 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

abortion-stub

I'm not sure I've found the commentary to which you refer on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion to explain your revert on abortion-stub. I find it interesting that you noted, in discussion of a userbox, that the image should not "suggest that abortion is solely an ethical topic." I agree entirely; the graphic should not be about the debate. The scales graphic is about nothing but the debate. It has nothing to do with abortion itself. The fetus graphic seems to fit perfectly without any politics at all. Abortion is an act upon a fetus. What better way to illustrate it than by a fetus? You indicated that the image was POV - but which point of view do you think an image of a fetus supports? We can't depict the actual action of abortion in a stub icon, so we can do the next best thing: depict the subject of the action. It seems very clear-cut and unpoliticized to me. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would invite you to participate in WPAbortion if you are concerned with the decisions we are making. We were the ones who discussed and created the abortion-related templates, including the project userbox, stub template, etc. Evidently, you missed a key point in the "Userbox" thread, because my precise response was: "I think the aim was to puporsely avoid politicized symbols, like fetuses or venus glyphs, because these would be divisive and suggest that abortion is solely an ethical topic." In other words, it would frame the issue in a manner preferable to one side, which is precisely what we want to avoid. Romarin agreed with me, and, again, conveyed the importance of neutral images in the thread "POV userbox." -Severa (!!!) 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I also find it perplexing that you equate scales with "the debate." Most would associate it with the law. -Severa (!!!) 07:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is funny, because I find it perplexing that you equate a fetus with the debate. I would think most would associate it with... abortion. I do associate the scales with decision-making, weighing two options against each other. Anyway, what does abortion really have to do with legislature? I certainly did read what you quoted, I agree that neutral images are important, and I believe I responded to it specifically: I believe that the fetus image is neutral. How is it politicized and divisive? Which side of the debate does it favor? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've copied the discussion and replied on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Total hijacking

I notice that you have systematically gone through every abortion entry I have made and totally hijacked them. If you do this one more time I will report you and ask to have you totally banned from editing. I have put a lot of work into the research and writing of those entries and do not appreciate the fact that you deleted all that work and are denying Wikipedia readers access to information that you dislike. By all means, add information, but this censorship is must stop. ChristinaDunigan 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mifepristone

i repeatedly pointed out to you that i thought your erroneous assumptions/summary deletions of sections without checking article edit history/patronizing recount of heliocentrism were rude. if you still don't get it, maybe you should reread. andrew and i are having a talkpage discussion (and not for the first time). i do not believe you are an adequate/qualified judge of whom has been discourteous to whom, as you clearly have not read/read closely the recent discussions/edit history of this article, in which i very clearly extend many courtesies to andrew (not summarily deleting his sections, being concerned that he may object, posting notice with detailed explanation and refs after considered thought when i did delete something--previous surgical abortion fatality stat, for example.) your statement that "if you want to contribute to this article..." also obnoxious/patronizing--or perhaps just ignorant? in the last two days i have greatly improved the quality of this article, mostly through scientific research --there wasn't a single pubmed citation before i came along. so i'm not sure if that statement merely implies that you have not read the recent edit history at all, or something else. in any case, i dont' "want" to contribute to the article--i *have* contributed to the article. (and i believe this may be difficult for andrew to accept, because he was happy with the previous form of the article, in which it was less an encyclopedia article than it was a recount of prochoice/prolife debate, with scientific evidence in short supply, and used sometimes in straw man arguments for one side. (i.e., depression and abortion/depression and breast cancer were not configured impartially with an emphasis on science, but set up only as the preconceptions of prolifers, "refuted" by prochoicers. while i am prochoice, i thought that it made the article lousy/insuffiently informative.) Cindery 01:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"bold" doesn't mean reckless/not glancing at the edit history, as you are well aware. as you do not appear to have read the edit history, i think you have mistakenly overvalued yourself as any kind of a potential mediator--i would say you made things worse, and should give up all ego-inflated pretense that you have any "diplomatic" value in this situation. (you're still quite condescending for my taste.)

your opinion of whether "checking" andrew by telling him personally-motivated nitpicking is not of much interest to the general reader on the talk page for an article doesn't interest me. (especially because you really lacked perspective/self control regarding off-topic bickering yourself). i feel it was a way of ending the conflict/letting him know that in spite of my diplomacy/impartiality/willingness to compromise just for the sake of goodwill regarding points in the article i wouldn't tolerate repeated personal attacks/nitpicking when he was unable to contain his frustration about having the "straw man" arguments defused/deleted. i would also say a "this is the discussion page for changes to the mifepristone article, not for discussing the topic in general" might be in order if either you or andrew can't confine yourselves reasonably to the subject in the future. Cindery 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

again, i find you patronzing/rude, speaking to me as though i have not contributed to editing controversial articles without researching/asking if i have--(look at rbgh, or depo provera...)

what is it exactly that you hope to get out of communicating with me? we are not discusssing contributions to an article, and from my perspective you are continually "repeating the same experiment over and over hoping for different results"--you subjectively make erroneous assumptions without due diligence and act on them while claiming "objectivity"; i take offense at the implied condescension therein, and the annoyance etc. perhaps we just do not like each other, and should restrict our communications accordingly. i find that it is better in the case of an irresolvable "personality uncompatibility" to engage in mutual avoidance, with extra caution not to cause offense when interaction is unavoidable. Cindery 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, wikipedia absolutely can function on personal avoidance--the articles/subjects/factual references are what matter ultimately. one of my key points re you is that we_are_not_discussing_a_proposed_change_to_an_artcle, which is the only circumstance under which i might have any obligation to talk to you. talkpage discussion with you is now officially a waste of time in my view/nothing is being accomplished. i tried to put it to you in a no-fault/maybe we just don't like each other way, but if you would like to force me to be explicit--at this point,i do not like you, i do not like the way you behave towards others, and i have zero obligation to or interest in interacting with you in any way, unless i choose to discuss a proposed change to an article with you. as we do not have any proposed changes to discuss, and i find further communication with you pointless, kindly leave me alone. i will ignore you etc in the future, unless i choose to discuss a proposed change to an article on a talk page, in which case i will be very diplomatically impersonal/succinct/strictly evidence-oriented. you are officially not invited to further gratuitously share your opinions with me. Cindery 11:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

You won't find it on the page, but a great second step is not to engage dispute resolution mechanisms... but rather to step back and simply take a break from the dispute. This not only allows cooler heads to prevail, but permits the significant amount of policy information and Wikiculture a new user initially encounters to sink in a bit. Hmmmm... I'm going to propose this on the policy page; and it was added in July... hehe. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While the post was certainly ill-willed... there was wasn't much personal attack within it technically speaking. Cindery stated his opinions, but did not directly attribute much towards you with the exception of concluding your posts were "gratuitous". I've had the misfortune of encountering this before with User:Calton. In that instance I was in the wrong, but Calton was quite rude about the entire thing.

The thing is, while Wikipedia encourages civility its unfortunately not required nor enforceable. Moreover engaging in further dispute resolution will draw it out and make the situation potentially worse. If Cindery doesn't want to get along fine; if Cindery ignores the rules that's a different story. Cindery reverted my addition, but he did provide a rationale... one I find wanting; however Cindery is editing in good faith. I don't see how dispute resolution can address a bad temperament. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never particpated in a RfC regarding the editing behavior of another editor. I feel it is premature to do that, and I personally do not want to be involved in that at this moment in time. That said, reading these comments directed towards RoyBoy struck me: it seemed sorta to me like you think you're being cute or that i will be annoyed by a favorable claim for abortion--barking up wrong tree. go read Barrington Hall. What does a comment like that accomplish? I just wish Cindery wouldn't make personal comments speculating about the intentions and motivations of other editors, especially in such an accusitory/derogatory manner. --Andrew c 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know what to do now. The editor always seems to find a way to make a snip at me, such as the most recent one about fractions. I feel I may need to take a break as well. It's like someone who isn't in an edit dispute with them needs to come along and say "look, talking about other editors, instead of their contributions, is not productive. Try to avoid using the word "you" in talk pages, and focus on content issues instead." After being accused of harrasment and attempts to intimidate anonymous editors, it seems ironic to see so many personal snips coming from Cindery. I'm clueless what to do. I want to contribute to the article, but it seems like I cannot help but butt heads. Anyway, I hope that you reconsider taking a break from wikipedia, or at least make it short, because you have always been on point when it comes to making contributions, and this little bump in the road shouldn't be affecting us as much as it is.--Andrew c 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)