What the heck is this gonna do? RoyBoy 05:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BladeRunner Voigt-Kampff machine.jpg
![⚠](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:BladeRunner Voigt-Kampff machine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Blade Runner FAR
I have nominated Blade Runner for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:SecondLife premiumgrowth.png
![⚠](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:SecondLife premiumgrowth.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Abortion - death
Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Hey, long time no talk to. What on earth are you thinking with your block/ban threats and posts like this? that's insulting to anyone on the page who might hold a differing view, and encourages similar behavior from others less experienced. If you're too time pressed to phrase your posts in a more civil fashion, maybe you need to post a little less? Just a thought, please do consider your actions on that talk page though. Puppy is friendly, puppy is concerned. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I take your point on being an example, but with JJL there's another example to be made. Look before you leap. And with my follow up I made it plain this wasn't about disagreement; its about the wholesale presumptuousness on their part. Despite their good intentions they insulted many things and people by that edit; saying as much would have been more diplomatic yes... but the pace of redundant discussions indicated to me enough time had been spent on soft selling. Boldly going forward with a self made consensus is something I would ban from abortion; so I said as much "could" happen, in the end I asked them to do the right thing. There is a cost to us collectively by civilly entertaining, every notion, by everyone, all the time. It's a slow death to good editors / moreover it burns their time. I've taken a long hiatus from the abortion article, and I'll take it again... soon.
- If they win the day, I'll apologize to NW and JJL for my tone, if they don't... they should take it as a lesson learned. - RoyBoy 19:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you will do as you see fit, of course, but your tone does seem a bit heavy handed and condescending to me. Given that we also have a newbie IP burying the talk page in thinly veiled (and not so veiled) insults and such, I would have appreciated you not feeding into the toxic morass, but of course you need not consider my thoughts at all. I find it confusing that you plan to apologize "if they win" - really? What the heck for? Either you think your actions/statements are appropriate, in which case no apology is indicated, or you don't, in which case you should apologise. Whose view is accepted by the page's editors has no logical bearing on whether your posts struck an appropriate tone. IMO, your threats of banning and blocking are unsupportable, and I will oppose any such action against any current editor of the page, pending more egregious violations than we have seen so far. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. As to acceptance, it's about them bringing something truly new to the table, if they didn't then its been another waste of time. I'm choosing not be civil on what I firmly consider to be a Groundhog Day discussion that got out of hand, if shown otherwise then my perception was incorrect and it was useful in some way; I would acknowledge this by apologizing. - RoyBoy 20:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you will do as you see fit, of course, but your tone does seem a bit heavy handed and condescending to me. Given that we also have a newbie IP burying the talk page in thinly veiled (and not so veiled) insults and such, I would have appreciated you not feeding into the toxic morass, but of course you need not consider my thoughts at all. I find it confusing that you plan to apologize "if they win" - really? What the heck for? Either you think your actions/statements are appropriate, in which case no apology is indicated, or you don't, in which case you should apologise. Whose view is accepted by the page's editors has no logical bearing on whether your posts struck an appropriate tone. IMO, your threats of banning and blocking are unsupportable, and I will oppose any such action against any current editor of the page, pending more egregious violations than we have seen so far. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
On a lighter note, remember this? Heh. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe, totally forgot... nice find. I do still have fun here... just not so much on this specific topic. - RoyBoy 20:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, made me smile, too. Six years of circular arguments can wear on one's patience, I know. its good to remember that for a lot of these editors, its a new debate, not an old one. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Obvious, true, and something me and my flu needed to hear. *hug* I suddenly want to take you for walkies!!') - RoyBoy 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Awww, hughughug back. Drink tea with honey and go to bed, you fool - why are you editing with the flu??? (mutters about Wikipedia addiction and taking care of oneself) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Obvious, true, and something me and my flu needed to hear. *hug* I suddenly want to take you for walkies!!') - RoyBoy 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, made me smile, too. Six years of circular arguments can wear on one's patience, I know. its good to remember that for a lot of these editors, its a new debate, not an old one. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Straw poll
Your recent post to the straw poll at Talk:Abortion#Making_progress_on_the_lede_sentence may need some clarification. Did you intend "support going to Arbcomm" to be a vote for the "Death" entry? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Straw Poll won't convince anyone.
This needs closed, we don't decide things by "we lot think it should be changed". Trying "before it's viable" again won't work. It will be shredded from both sides on account of factual inaccuracy and POV. Some editors don't seem to get it. They think, oh, we got a few in agreeance here, lets give a big push, ignore all thats been said before, and we'll maybe get our way this time. That is bad editorial practice, no matter who is doing it. Straw Polls don't convince anyone. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- The poll like the discussion needs to run its course. Bare in mind the lead can change, time will pass (meaning we move on), and then at some point it changes back. Sometimes a long road, is a very long indeed. - RoyBoy 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way my apologies if you're not well. I am getting over a abscessed tooth, and on antibiotics. Hope your well. It's good to have someone there who has been in the debate for a while and knows what has been tried.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that, I've had a cracked tooth, so I can certainly sympathize. - RoyBoy 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree if there is no consensus for a change then editors should give it up, or be warned. Spinning out a debate, by attempting to cast continual doubt on what is already known to be factual and true, only serves to discourage editors with a NPOV. JJL is spinning this out. OrangeMarlin doesn't even show up except to say something like "we don't put up with this on other articles". You need to take the whole job lot to an AN/I, and be done with it. OM threatened to open this all up again when the picture was removed and I suggested an RFC was needed first. Here's his comment from 12 May 2011:
- RfC's are a waste of time. But if you're going to open it up, I'm going to make sure "death" is removed from the lead, since a fetus is not alive, so it can't be killed. If you're going to open one shitty can of works, I get to open my own. Go for it. By the way, I reverted the POV picture. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tiresome though it is I decided to let JJL make his case, I am still waiting. Theirs is a deliberate tactic. It's not based in consensus, or reliable sources. I am sick of this, a consensus based on every other possible option considered being assailed by one editor. Making editors keep debating the issue ad nauseam. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Circumstances for most late term abortions
Dear Roy,
This information from people who perform late term abortions or advocate for these providers is useful when trying to understand the reality. I know you are busy and don't have time to read every post on the abortion talk page, so I have put the material here for you convenience. I understand you might want to delete it after reading it. Here it is:
The following doctors have made it clear that they have witnessed abortions of viable fetuses and/or that late-term abortions at the viable stage are typically done for purely elective non-medical reasons (the opposite of what some have been baldly asserting, which is that post-viable abortions are almost always done for anomalies or serious medical implications). Of course every doctor has different experiences. I invite someone to post other doctors on record to the contrary.
- Abortion procedures are performed on viable fetuses and the proof is that annually dozens of them survive their attempted abortion - Dr. Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at London's St. George’s hospital, commented on the UK government's Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) report that 50 babies a year are born alive in the UK after botched National Health Service abortions (as reported by London's The Sunday Times, November 27, 2005) as follows: "They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation. . . I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine. . . If viability is the basis on which they set the 24-week limit for abortion, then the simplest answer is to change the law and reduce the upper limit to 18 weeks."
- Slain late-term abortion doctor George Tiller stated in a speech to the National Abortion Federation in April 1995 in New Orleans that very few post-vaiability abortions were for complicated medical reasons: "We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."
- Late-term abortion doctor Martin Haskell (who invented partial-birth (D&X) abortion) has flatly denied that most late-term abortions are for fetal anomalies or some other serious medical probelm. He actually noted that nearly 100% of the 28+ week abortions he performed were purely elective: “Two of the criticisms that I’ve been hearing lately about how our side is structuring its debate is that, one, we seem to be taking a position that-in the case of the D&X-that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case. The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure versus the 90% who it’s elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period, and then as you get on towards 28 weeks it becomes closer to a hundred percent. But these seem to be very uncomfortable issues for people on our side of the debate to deal with.”
- Also admitting that most late-term abortions are done on healthy fetuses and healthy women was the voice of the abortion provider lobby during the "partial birth" abortion debate, Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who told the New York Times in 1997: "When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."
Most sincerely, 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's a very American- and Euro-centric set of data, and this is a worldwide encyclopedia. In parts of Asia, I understand that nobody ever tries to claim that late-term abortions primarily involve health issues. Most late-term abortions in some countries are acknowledged to be about gender selection and controlling the size of the family. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but those countries aren't mentioned on the pro-life websites where 67.233.18.28 gets his quotes and "sources". HTH. MastCell Talk 01:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The quotations are from wikiquote (as you can discover if you do a gradeschool google search http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1W1ADFA_en&source=hp&q=fitzsimmons+haskell+tiller+campbell+abortion&rlz=1W1ADFA_en&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=18775b43b0670ef8&biw=1440&bih=698), and they are the candid words of abortion practitioners or their lobbyists. Apparently you can't refute their words, so you try misdirection. But that does not really work either, because your "argument" is a non-sequitur and does nothing to refute WhatamIdoing's reiteration that late-term abortion is mostly birth-control and rarely involves fetal anomalies or severely ill women. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but those countries aren't mentioned on the pro-life websites where 67.233.18.28 gets his quotes and "sources". HTH. MastCell Talk 01:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Note to self.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - RoyBoy 22:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not only "a simple majority" but "a simple majority of a handful of editors" seem to think they can alter any consensus.
- Furthermore, they mixed two issues ("death" and "viable") into one ("death" or "viable") - if the are linked it is rather the other way around: how can speak of "viability" but then avoid speaking of "death" - if the fetus is not-viable (i.e. not viable independently) than the fetus obviously is alive and therefore can die. Str1977 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had not thought about that disconnect in years. - RoyBoy 22:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is at least one editor there who thinks he's a third umpire, but I am sure I have seen him bat! Working on that page is definetly not cricket though. DMSBel (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin has been violating the general sanctions on the Abortion article
Roy: I don't know to whom this documented log of abuse should go to ensure that the user is sanctioned. Mastcell erased it from the abortion talk page. I copied the mark-up language below (including Orangemarlin's vulgar reply). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is now a concerted effort to remove this log of Abortion vandalism by Orangemarlin from any place I try to post it. I hope you will look into that. Very disruptiuve. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin has violated the general sanctions that have been imposed on this article. [NB: Orangemarlin's talk page has been protected and reverted and thus I cannot leave this warning on his talk page. That is why the warning is being left here.] Orangemarlin has committed vandalism and is edit warring by reverting the lede to include language that does not enjoy consensus and has been rejected for years by the consensus of editors. The most recent reversion was 24 hours and 3 minutes after his last reversion. Such behavior is both tendentious editing and a violation of the 1RR rule that applies to this article ("subject to 1RR (1 revert per 24 hours per user per page)"). In addition, because on June 21 OrangeMarlin warned another editor that abortion articles are subject to the 1RR rule and is therefore aware of that IRR rule, Orangemarlin has breached 1RR after knowing that the topic is subject to 1RR, and therfore Orangemarlin has violated the formal requirement to discuss any reversions made on pages in the topic on the abortion talk page. The following is an inclusive chronology of all editing done by OrangeMarlin to Abortion and to Talk:Abortion:
- OM1. Talk:Abortion 14:37, 23 June 2011 Asked a question to a poll response.
- OM2. Abortion 17:07, 26 June 2011 Removed "death" from lede and replaced with "viable".
- OM3. Talk:Abortion 20:47, 26 June 2011 Left comment that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
- OM4. Talk:Abortion 01:54, 27 June 2011 Made housekeeping edit that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
- OM5. Talk:Abortion 03:00, 27 June 2011 Made housekeeping edit that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
- OM6. Abortion 17:10, 27 June 2011 Removed "death" from lede and replaced with "viable".
- OM7. Talk:Abortion 19:45, 27 June 2011 As of this date and time OrangeMarlin had left no comment about his edit to the lede.
- OM8. Talk:abortion 20:27, 27 June 2011 Only comment after editing lede was "Jesus fucking Christ, my left nutsack is a bit itchy"
What is more, OrangeMarlin has been disruptive in this topic area by engaging in that same excessively uncivil personal attack ("My left nutsack knows more than you. Jesus fucking Christ, I have never attacked you personally, but have, in fact, ignored you commentary") against another editor. The special sanctions that apply the abortion article allow an administrator to impose actions for edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility, 1RR and not using the talk page when editing the article. Therefore I ask that an administrator impose extraordinary sanctions on User:Orangemarlin. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jesus fucking Christ, my left nutsack is a bit itchy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC) [This reply was also copied from the talk page - Orangemarlin did not post it here]
- LOLz, I like you when not talking to me. ;"D - RoyBoy 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi 67.233.18.28, yeah OM's a professional ass, especially when convinced he's right; sometimes he manages some impressive insight and gets things done. But the real issue is the lackluster straw poll, if that cannot be addressed then OM is defending the defacto democratic new consensus. Which is ironic, as I doubt OM sees democracy as legitimate on Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 22:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrongful Block?
I realise that some admin have a very low threshold above which they cannot tolerate heat in a discussion, but this block seems improper to me.[[1]] Your thoughts on this. DMSBel (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- You may have a point, but a 48 hr block may serve to stabilize talk:abortion. Not the first block on the IP. - RoyBoy 01:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the earlier "weigh in" was a little too enthusiastic :-) But if it was because of that it should have been made clear. One thing concerns me is blocks being dispensed like its a case of Steve McQueen in The Great Escape - 48hrs in the cooler for you this time! Talk can be stablised by a warning usually. The IP seems to respect those and throttles back. We can't expect him not to reply at all though. And this block has no duration mentioned at all. Just Blocked. Like What!? DMSBel (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- The IP was also very careful to avoid misrepresenting things in his complaint, as you see above, he took care that there would be no confusion that what he was posting might be confused with an editor actually making the comments his complaint was about here. The call for "extra-ordinary" sanctions may have been over the top a little, a fixed duration topic ban would have been more likely to be enacted. DMSBel (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Question re. source
Hi RoyBoy, I hope you don't mind me asking, but as you had been involved in the debate in the past I thought you might know the answer to this - the lede (the consensus version) not the current version had a source for the phrase "resulting in or caused by its death". It was Gynecology for Lawyers. I can't imagine that this happened to be used for reference without a good reason. Just wondering if you remember or could point me to a part of the archive that discussed this. A brief glance back at archived discussion showed me that listing the definitions was considered to be more proper to the abortion debate section, rather than the lede. I can see how that would make more sense and be a more appropriate part of the article to mention definitions. DMSBel (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good question, I don't know the answer though. Offhand I'd say it was used for it's legal standing/authority to show practically speaking "death" is okay, and not simply "pro-life verbiage / conspiracy". - RoyBoy 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Calling an end to the Abortion lede debacle
So that you're in the picture from the start: [[2]]DMSBel (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone else should AN/I it.
I won't be able to comment for a few hoursDMSBel (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Awwwwwww. You're so fucking cute.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Muh huh. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Now that the Bello thing is handled I have some free time. You need someone to take OM to ANI--I'm your man. – Lionel (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Roy, it seems that the new definitions being proposed for the lead miss the mark. The problem, really, is that the medical definitions that some are wedded to also miss the same mark. I don't think an objective observer can reach any other conclusion. I hope you can make some headway on this particular point. The info I am highlighting seems to be what you have been argung for all laong. Cheers.71.3.232.238 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
HAT some old sections on the talk page maybe
Royboy, could possibly HAT (is that the term) some of the old discussion that hasn't been productive on the Abortion talk page. Some of it has gone nowhere and has a lot of WP:OR in it, like the fetus is a dead parrot section.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- HAT works, however this is used for things that do not belong. Doesn't fit here, also a bot already is setup to archive any thread 14 days unmodified. 2 weeks as I understand it is the minimum we allow for interested editors to review talk before it gets archived. HAT'in stuff that will be archived soon anyway makes it difficult to read through the talk page for newcomers. - RoyBoy 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Well I'll leave it for now. It doesn't help that there is an editor bringing WP:OR to the page. I know Ermadog seems to have read a bit in terms of the history of abortion, but presenting it in a NON-OR manner is another thing altogether from just knowing what the Greeks thought about the conceptus, what medieval philosophers thought etc. Actually no, just stating it would be fairly neutral but it really doesn't seem the place to go into it. Some of the more recent views (that life begins at, or just before the first breath) don't make sense to me anyway in light of the fact peri-natal pediatrics considers a baby to be a patient before birth and after. The IP done us a service there by highlighting the patient status of the fetus is normative in the view of the medical profession, and I have sought to keep that in focus in the discussion. DMSBel (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Admin limits
Hi, sorry to trouble you. Can you assist me with regards to where Admin empowerment to enact bans might be discussed, or has been discussed. I have taken issue with a ban placed on one of the IPs editing the Abortion article. Am I to understand that indefinite site-wide bans are enactable without AN/I in advance. The IP in question has not been "ejected" from wikipedia, but according to the talk page, it covers the whole of wikipedia and is "indefinite". I have something of a problem the idea of an indefinite ban (far too Orwellian for my tastes), perhaps because having one placed on me gives me some flavor of what it is like. My topic-ban however was discussed on AN/I first. Do IPs not get that privilege? I thought, or at least had the impression that when Wikipedia is functioning at its best, bans are discussed in an open forum, where uninvolved Admin can comment. These links will hopefully will give you more of the picture.
- Talk page of Admin who imposed the ban:[[3]]
- Talk page of the banned IP [[4]]
- Section on talk page of another Admin who I asked to look at the block [[5]]
I know the IP can be a little bit annoying to some editors, but he/she is generally civil. Argumentation is good. Blocking an editor for "tendentious argumentation" - I wonder if that is not just rooted in counter-POV. Even if the IP has a strong POV thats not having an agenda. POVs in a discussion can be good. DMSBel (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- While a counter POV can limit an admin's patience, I told the/a IP to let off the gas, while it may have slowed the behavior it resumed. Any block evasion can, and should, be met swiftly. Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Indefinite_blocks indicates sock can apply in this situation. I'd suggest the IP create a user account (ask to do so if they currently cannot), more importantly stick to using the account and take frequent breaks lest a topic ban be imposed. I see EdJohnston said as much in the second block review, his advice should be followed to the letter. Ultimately the user needs to avoid repeating points with large amounts of material / references, it is tendentious as it tires everyone out, accomplishes little and fills the talk page. Admins eventually have to step in. - RoyBoy 20:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (copied to the IP talk page)
- Yes I know you told him to lay off the gas. But he has a point at times. His sources are being held up to higher scrutiny than the sources present in the article. And what about JJL not getting the point? If the IP is tendentious how does JJL compare? A petty game of bait the IP started with LeadSongDog and MastCell having a go at him (the IP), to see if it was one editor. I assume it is one editor perhaps in a library one time, then at home. But what right have I to ask him/her. Its none of my business. I am not going to get into this pissy game of asking questions in an indirect way to see who answers. DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have done all I can at present. User:Magog the Ogre is also aware of the matter. I won't be back on the site for a day or so. All the best in the meantime, and thanks for looking at the incident. Bit of a nuisance I know, but avoidable and bans sometimes cause more trouble than letting IPs speak. DMSBel (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree if the ban stays. - RoyBoy 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- While I can sympathize, bait should be avoided. Although the IP is banned at this point, there is a path to their re-inclusion, so things should work out. - RoyBoy 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Clean slate for the IP if they register?
- Sort of... if they continue to edit as they have, someone will feel the need to verify the IP associated with the account, and caution the account that just because they can now edit again; it isn't a green light to continue anew. When I saw the IP's proposed compromise lead using viable and death, I do see it has something to contribute. It just has to contribute in a less argumentative style. - RoyBoy 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, if you mean less confrontative I agree, but that would be applicable to more editors than the IP. I appreciate you giving the matter your consideration though. Best. DMSBel (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sort of... if they continue to edit as they have, someone will feel the need to verify the IP associated with the account, and caution the account that just because they can now edit again; it isn't a green light to continue anew. When I saw the IP's proposed compromise lead using viable and death, I do see it has something to contribute. It just has to contribute in a less argumentative style. - RoyBoy 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Medical Dictionary and Definitions in general
- I pruned this post, rather than outright deleting it. - RoyBoy 02:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As we consider the definition contained in the lead, we should consider what wikpipedia suggests should be true about definitions:
- 1.A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.
- 3.The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).
We should also consider what wikipedia says about definitions at the beginning of wikipedia articles:
Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions:
A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term.
A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. See also Fallacies of definition.
71.3.232.238 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Connotations, euphemisms, and consensus
Hey. I left a message for Gandydancer that might interest you.[6] My feeling is that it would be okay to swap out the word "death" in the 2006-2011 lead sentence, substituting a similar word having different connotations; doing so would not necessarily be euphemistic if the connotations are different. Possibilities include expiration, demise, loss, et cetera. The connotation we need to avoid is that induced abortion terminates a human soul, or that a life equally meaningful to our own begins at conception.
Regarding the current lead sentence, I don't think there's consensus for it, and don't think it would be substantially improved by inserting qualifying words like "medical" or "usually". If you agree that it lacks consensus, then I guess someone needs to do a detailed analysis at the article talk page showing that it lacks consensus. And then we can attempt again to restore the 2006-2011 version pending consensus to change it. But maybe it would go smoother if we could first resolve the death thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the concern, but its unwarranted. Death in the ending of biological processes of an organism, it fits. I believe a compromise is on the table, tacking on viable to the 2006 consensus. Loss = ambiguous, demise = person dies, expiration = long awkward version of death. - RoyBoy 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Equating expiration to death is merely an archaic secondary definition of "expiration".[7] The primary definition is "coming to a close; termination".
Anyway, among the people who have insisted on changing the 2006-2011 version without consensus, I see no willingness to accept the word "death". Moreover, tacking on "viable" to the 2006-2011 lead sentence (i.e. denying that abortion of a viable fetus is physically possible) would render a narrow technical medical definition that does not accurately or neutrally reflect the viewpoints on the topic, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Equating expiration to death is merely an archaic secondary definition of "expiration".[7] The primary definition is "coming to a close; termination".
- Britannica set the standard on viable being clarified, so don't be concerned with that. - RoyBoy 01:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Britannica says abortion is "the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation)." Thus, Britannica denies there is such a thing as abortion of a viable fetus, unlike many other reliable sources which do not. The "usually" in Britannica is with regard to when viability occurs, not to whether abortion occurs before viability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Britannica set the standard on viable being clarified, so don't be concerned with that. - RoyBoy 01:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, though I did not model my preferred Abortion definitions directly after Britannica; rather I was referring to the idea of "usually" even appearing in a encyclopedic lead was foreign to me until I saw it there. I didn't like it, and I still don't technically, but it may have its place to acknowledge the inherent biological ambiguity of the abortion and viability. As a side benefit, we mitigate some connotations of death/destroy. - RoyBoy 02:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Roy, I think you are trying to combine two incompatible definitions. One definition denies that there is such a thing as an "abortion" of a viable fetus. The other definition doesn't. Why can't we present these as distinct definitions in the lead sentence? If we do that, and change death to destruction, then we can all get on with our lives, I hope.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- If this is another option add it. I have to concede I find "the two major definitions" proposal confusing, perhaps that is my failing. "may be", seems weaselly, non-committal and non-specific. I'm growing use to weaselly, but not the others. You clarify viability being the distinguishing factor; but then do not use the word in the sentence. Having a huge link in the first sentence is a no no. - RoyBoy 04:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would you support the following? "Abortion is an induced or spontaneous loss of a pregnancy involving destruction of a fetus or embryo, although medically the term "abortion" does not usually/technically apply when the fetus is viable."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Probably, very inventive. - RoyBoy 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I will post it now. - RoyBoy 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of rephrasing at the article talk page: "Abortion is a loss of a pregnancy, involving destruction of a fetus or embryo, although medically the term 'abortion' does not usually apply if the fetus has become viable.” The reason I took out "spontaneous or induced" is because the only reason it was inserted was because "loss of pregnancy" sounded too passive, but now the "destruction" language removes that problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Probably, very inventive. - RoyBoy 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I will post it now. - RoyBoy 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by August 3, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Mediation
I went along with your request to postpone mediation at the abortion article, but how would you suggest we proceed? It might be nice to slap a big POV tag at the top of the article, but it would probably be removed regardless of the POV disputes. It seems to me that several editors at this article want it to reflect their POV regardless of Wikipedia policies. Of course, they would say the exact same thing about me, which isn't true but kind of confuses things. So what's your advice, Roy?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- My plan is to proceed with an RfC after bringing the lead options to two contenders (with variations as required). If one achieves consensus then it will go live. If it doesn't I'd advise JzG to revert back to the previous consensus and request a mediation. I don't count on either being fruitful. My advice is to wait as this happens over the next month. - RoyBoy 02:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is it useful for me and others to edit the lead sentence to signal disagreement with changes that have been made to it? My understanding of the consensus process is that failing to revert may signal acquiscence, or de facto consensus. I don't want to be involved in a slow-motion edit war, but maybe that's necessary to prevent the other folks from doing whatever they want?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly, but a slow edit war can indicate all sides inability to discuss the topic. This would put an intervening admin into a position of choosing between two evils, and as JzG choose incorrectly (otherwise he is a great admin/editor) that shows strictly medical definitions have the advantage of familiarity. Also an edit war could bring in more contributors; who would lean/choose familiarity; which seems editorially sound, but ironically goes against my understanding of WP:policy (revert to consensus Then discuss) and WP:style (avoid technical if possible). - RoyBoy 16:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1. There is no consensus for the current version.
- 2. Both the talk page and the article are semi-protected, so it is impossible to gauge consensus.
- 3. The current version relegates the definitions from the most popular and relied-upon non-specialty dictionaries (Webster's, Oxford, etc.) to some inferior position, which also violates numerous wiki policies.
- 4. The current version is a result of an edit war that was started by editors who could not accept the consensus and ignored wikipedia policy to ram through their current concepts for the lead.
- 5. There is overwhelming support from wikipedia policy and WP:RS to include a specific mention in the lead that the unique aspect of abortion as a termination of pregnancy is that an abortion always includes the death of the fetus (whereas termination of pregnancy by other means always includes the fetus being born as a live infant).
71.3.234.41 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- @71.3.234.4: I think that with your tendentious arguments, inability to take on board others' points, and constant block evasion, you're sort of your own worst enemy. But that's just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 18:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Abortion Motion
I made a motion here. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Check this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.160 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
File:Total Income Top1 (1916-2006).jpg
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Total_Income_Top1_%281916-2006%29.jpg/130px-Total_Income_Top1_%281916-2006%29.jpg)
I just found the image. Thank you. It is nice. Could you do an updated version please? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Jesanj (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Seems there are some concerns about it expressed here. Jesanj (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've replied. - RoyBoy 03:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Seems there are some concerns about it expressed here. Jesanj (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Ibn Ubayy
Hello RoyBoy,
I don't really understand what you mean by your message:
"I have to admit, really surprised me to see you involved with this article. I've removed the NPOV template as issues need to be pinpointed to move forward."
Why are you surprised?
If I remember correctly, it was others that tagged the article as non-neutral. In fact, it was I that removed the tag after almost a year of nothing happening in 2008, only to have another editor restore it again. Since I believe that the fact that one party states that there is a dispute obviously proves that statement, I accepted the continued tagging. But I surely don't disagree with your removal now.
However, in the meantime some IP has changed several sourced passages to suit his POV. I will restore these.
Regards, Str1977 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Do my contributions help toward compromise and consensus or hinder?
RE: Abortion discussion, I'd like to ask your opinion, since you have been with the article quite a while. Each time I try to edit this article I find what seems to be at least 3 or 4 editors who seem to share a common POV, ready and waiting to revert changes. It might not be the case of course that there is a common POV amongst these editors, but there certainly was misunderstanding resulting in my last block. I am trying very hard to AGF when there is not clear grounds for calling a spade a spade, sometimes even when think there is I still attempt to discuss. Yet it seems very strange that the changes I made were so quickly jumped on. I'd like to be able to contribute and work collaboratively with non-partisan editors there and I am seeking continually to do that. It seems the issue of including mention of the death of the fetus is not of significant concern to most editors, and those to whom it is objectionable have only an issue with it in the first sentence.
Another issue is about numerous edits to the actual article often without discussion. To me it seems would make sense rather than have the current sanctions, to instead put say a 24 hr waiting period into force between proposing a change on the discussion page and making the change. This would give proper opportunity for actual discussion, something that only partisan editors would without good reason object to?
If there is not a restoration to the earlier consensus, and no consensus for the current lede, then we would need to perhaps go to a process similiar to back in 2006. Which seemed to be much more collaborative than the current debates. I'd favour a sanction against straw-polls being set up by anyone proposing any particular change, or indeed involved editor. Straw polls really only work as part of a process, not as a quick way to overturn existing consensus.DMSBel (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I also cannot understand the objection to the use of the term "death" - since "dead" does refer to an actual state of affairs and that contrasts with the opposite state of affairs of a fetus being alive or healthy (an oft made medical judgement surely). The comment that led to this whole dispute was non-sensical. It puzzling to see otherwise seemingly intelligent editors taken in by it.DMSBel (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Failing or refusing to concede a point without giving a reason also seems to occur fairly often there. [[8]] DMSBel (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Based on my experience with contentious articles/edits -- an adversarial dynamic good faith or not -- is beneficial to an article in the long term. While I/we try to avoid it, sometimes its necessary for those involved to learn and grow. Ironically this process is a factor in losing contributors and editor fatigue, but it seems to me (currently) some articles need it as much as references. For example NW gave us a way out that improved the article. Being on the receiving end of several like-minded editors and poor etiquette... the best I can offer is to pace yourself, and take out pent up editing energy on different articles rather than the same editors. This provides space to circle back to the problem(s) with less intensity, while giving oneself a sense of progress on Wikipedia -- rather than increasing frustration. As to consensus, I believe you are helping if others don't get defensive/annoyed. The anon with the filibustering style was definitely hindering. - RoyBoy 19:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks RoyBoy for your reply. Most helpful. DMSBel (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Striked "your" (below) , misread the page, you had commented further down, and I had thought it was all one post. Another editors proposed changes. Sorry for the misunderstanding. DMSBel (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Same subject so didn't start a new section. Regarding proposed changes, as I have been involved in the dispute, I'd like to offer comment on
yourrecent proposed versions for the first sentence, on the page. However I am also facing either a topic ban or a site ban and have (in deference to ARBCOM) some reservations about making continued contributions to the discussion, though as far as I am aware no final (I'll check again in a moment) decision has been made. Having given some further consideration on terminology I think I can exercise a little more latitude on some aspects of the lede.User:DMSBel / 62.254.133.139 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Talk about timing! Clerks note came through just after above post. ITB for me, about to look at the proceedings, had no idea it was just about to close. Needless to say that rules out any comments from me on any proposed changes. Best to you RoyBoy.DMSBel (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Royboy, as you most likely are aware I am under restrictions in what I can edit. However I don't wish breach those restrictions but just to draw your attention to a possible way forward which might hopefully be acceptable to enough editors for a consensus. This is something I am sure neutral editors could (even if it needs slight alteration) agree on, as it could be incorporated into the lede after a definition. It came up in reply on Jclemens talk page, when I was airing some of my thoughts regarding the Arbcom case.[[9]]. I really have no intention of pushing the limits on my ban, but didn't want something that could very possibly provide a way out of that impasse to go unnoticed. DMSBel (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand what might get consensus in the diff cited. - RoyBoy 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the following might run :"Many people believe a fetus to be a distinct human being, and elective abortion a process that causes its death, while others disagree, noting that the developing fetus is dependent on the woman until viability"DMSBel (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is as far as I can discuss the matter, as I don't want to push the limits on my restrictions. Even if I had not a ban now, I'd have liked to take a break from the article in question. Sorry if I have not helped, or made your task more difficult. Best to you. DMSBel (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Its not a concern, if it were I would have not done it / not mentioned you. The spirit of a ban is to maintain stability and cool things down, me forwarding salient points isn't a problem. If I forwarded entire posts, that's a diff story. If anyone hassles you about this, forward them to me. - RoyBoy 18:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, no just food for thought, in the diff I linked to, it was just put forward to demonstrate how a mediating statement differs from two polarising and POV ones. But it seems to me now, that things got so bogged down in regard to the first sentence I lost perspective and forgot there could be a little bit of latitude in how to address this aspect of the topic, without either putting it in the first sentence or ignoring it completely.DMSBel (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, it made sense when you focused me on the sentence. Its something I wouldn't have considered myself, given the past (2006-2011) of moving things to abortion debate, but with "viable" in the lead it might be helpful / needed. - RoyBoy 00:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes well you are more familiar with what has been tried in the past than I am. BTW I have mentioned you in a comment at the amendment discussion: [[10]]. DMSBel (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)