User talk:DMSBel: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:43, 4 September 2011 editMastCell (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →Abortion workshop notificaiton: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:18, 5 September 2011 edit undoPenwhale (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,574 edits →ArbCom Case: Abortion: new sectionNext edit →
Line 342:		Line 342:

	By way of notification, I have made proposals at ] involving your account. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)		By way of notification, I have made proposals at ] involving your account. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

			== ArbCom Case: Abortion ==

			This message is to inform you that you have been added to an currently open Arbitration case, ], per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at ].

			For the Arbitration Committee,<br>
			- ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:18, 5 September 2011

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, DMSBel, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts 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 username or IP address 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. --SineBot (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, DMSBel. You have new messages at MWOAP's talk page. Message added 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. -- /MWOAP\|Notify Me\ 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Talkback

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, DMSBel. You have new messages at NoisyJinx's talk page. Message added 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. _noisy jinx 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, DMSBel. You have new messages at NoisyJinx's talk page. Message added 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. _noisy jinx 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Words of encouragement

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I note that you are a new editor. I hope that our disagreement about censorship will not dissuade you from participating in Misplaced Pages. I noted that you have few edits so far, but that some of them have been in the Humanism article. I myself am a Buddhist, and a secular humanist (as Buddhists are non-theistic). Rather than a Christian Humanist as I suppose that you are. I feel certain that the two of us have many more beliefs and values in common, than differences.

Too often I see someone motivated to participate in Misplaced Pages start from a deletionist or critical perspective. That is, looking places where they disagree to remove content. I am not suggesting that you will be such an editor. My hope is that you will focus on your areas of education and experience and substantively ADD content to articles within your realm of expertise. By taking actions to add valuable content, increase the clarity of articles and perhaps even create stubs for new articles that do not yet exist, you can make Misplaced Pages better for everyone.

Initially there is a learning curve of becoming used to Misplaced Pages policies regarding how to edit, and how to get along with other editors, and when to involve an administrator. I know you have your toe in the water on both of those, having read about the no censorship policy, and having places an RfC.

In summary, I wish you success and encourage you to contribute. I don't wish to scare you away just because of a minor misunderstanding on policy.

Peace, and best for you, Atom (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to Talk:Ejaculation, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. You realize that 80% of the last 50 edits on this page are yours right? Might I suggest taking more time in deciding what you want to write? NeilN 08:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did with this edit to the page Talk:Ejaculation. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Res 2216 firestar 03:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, DMSBel. You have new messages at Res2216firestar's talk page. Message added 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Res 2216 firestar 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To DMSBel from Paine

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I deeply apologize to you, DMSBel, for several things...

First, and foremost, I am sorry for our disagreement about the items in the article we've been discussing. I do not like to disagree with other editors, especially about things like this. I have been in your position and have argued against inclusion of such items in the past, just like you are now. So please forgive me, as somewhere while I aged, I changed my mind about such things. And in a moment I shall tell you why I changed my mind.
Secondly, I am sorry to discuss this with you here on your Talk page. I know I am breaking the rules by doing so. Discussion about encyclopedia articles should take place on the article's discussion page. So again I ask for your forgiveness, for it would be embarrassing for me to write these things to you more publicly.
Next, I am deeply sorry that you have been driven to great lengths, such as going to the admins seeking policy change, because you feel that several editors, some far less involved than you in the article, have ganged up on you. And I'm sorry to have been a part of that.
And finally, I am sorry that somewhere along the way, I changed my mind about including such as the images and film in Misplaced Pages articles. I said I would tell you why, and here is why...

In cases like this article, I sat back and I asked myself why I was against the inclusion of such images, but I was not against the article itself. The reason I was not against the article is because the editors had written the text to be very medical, very "clinical" sounding. So the article itself, while it described in graphic text the topic of the article, was easily acceptable to be included on Misplaced Pages. So why, then, I asked myself, am I against the inclusion of graphic images that, in the opinion of others, made the topic of the article more understandable to some general readers? As much as I disliked the images and film for several reasons, I finally had to conclude to myself that the images were not, in reality, any better or worse than the graphic text descriptions of the topic. So I found myself changing my mind. I did not change my mind about the disgusting nature of the images and film, but I did change my mind and felt that the images and film are no better, nor worse, than the graphic text. If there are no images, then some readers can still imagine in their minds what happens just by reading the text. However, there are some readers whose imaginations are more "hearing-centered" rather than "reading-centered". That just means that those readers, by only having the text to read, have trouble picturing in their minds what happens. And those particular readers (we have no way of knowing just how many) are benefited by the inclusion of visual aids, such as the images and the film. So I once again ask your forgiveness for changing my mind, and for putting yourself and myself at odds about the inclusion of the pictures and the film.

So I sincerely hope that you can find it within you to forgive me for these things, and if you truly desire for me to make a public apology to you, just ask me and I will do so. I will write a brief apology to you on the article's Talk page if you so desire. Thank you very much for reading, and I wish the best of everything to you and yours!
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, DMSBel, for your response on my Talk page. And thank you for your apology as well, although there is nothing to forgive. You have, under the circumstances, been very civil for the most part. And as I indicated above, I do understand how frustrating these debates can be from both perspectives. As you indicated on my Talk page, I shall be glad to return and continue to add my comments where I think they might be of help. Thank you again for your response, and I continue to wish you and yours only the best!
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My edits

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

59% of my edits are script assisted which means about 41% are not straight reverts (e.g., adding sources, adding categories, doing disambiguation work, fixing text, commenting on user and article talk pages, etc.). And you better know policies and guidelines damn well when you're reverting non-vandal edits and doing CSD work - WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:CSD, WP:EL to name a few. --NeilN 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You can specify a custom signature in your preferences. My font is "Century Gothic", which you could specify with this: DMSBel. Equazcion 04:57, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

] ] (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to check "Sign my name exactly as shown." --NeilN 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

January 2011

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note on breaking up comments

Just a note on commenting: it is generally recommended not to break up another editors comments with your own, but rather to respond as one post. If the comment you are responding to is particularly long and it would be unclear if you responded once at the end, you should sign each part of your response as if it were a separate post. You should also copy-paste the original signature of the post you are responding to onto the end of each section that you interrupt. (You can also do this with Template:Interrupted.) The relevant guidelines are here under the subheading "Interruptions". --Danger (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, not sure how it happened. Will try and watch that for again.DMSBel (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Cyclopia 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not delete or otherwise change other editor's comments. The edit in question is here: JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents . Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Please do not call other editors "a bunch of idiots", or other uncivil comments such as you made in this edit: JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Ejaculation are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. I'm sorry, but the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss article improvements. These edits do not do that: , , , , , JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think you have both an "oppose" and a "support" for "no image".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban on human sexuality

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per the ANI discussion - there is a community consensus that you should be topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, broadly interpreted, across all pages. I have enacted and noted the ban, and it is now in effect. The discussion closure is here and the logged editing restriction is here.

The exact text of the enacted restriction, distilled from the discussion, is:

DMSBel is topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly, including talk pages and Misplaced Pages space pages, for an indefinite period.

You are not allowed to discuss the topic itself anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including your pages, talk pages, Misplaced Pages space pages, etc. The ban specifically says that it is to be interpreted broadly; pushing the limit on related topics is not recommended.

You may, if necessary, ask for clarification about the ban, and can appeal it at a later date to the community or to the Arbitration Committee.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your appeal

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The format there is unusual. You're not supposed to put your reply at a location like you would at a talk page. Everything you say to anyone should all be located together in the section that has your name at the top. So, you ought to move your latest comment up. If not, someone else will likely do it for you. That is called "refactoring".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I orginally had it in my own comments section, and then moved it down not knowing that it was incorrect. I'll move it back again.DMSBel (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Since you're now talking to the "supreme court" of Misplaced Pages, you ought to be sure to include some slight edit summary even for a minor edit. It's no big deal, but it couldn't hurt. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a subcommittee either. Here's a good link if you weren't already aware. Good luck.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like your ArbCom request is still active. It's an interesting case with several timely issues involved. If it's accepted, then I hope you don't mind too much seeing it through, even though it's a pain in the neck for you. Anyway, take it easy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Impersonation?

An IP made these edits to a talk page and signed them with your username, could you confirm whether this is you or not? _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel has commented that 62.254.133.139 is his IP: JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is me. I apologise for the confusion. I made a few changes to my comments on that page. I have been adding User:DMSBel to my IP when I have forgotten to sign in. DMSBel (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.OrangeMarlin 05:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Less is more

Hi, DMS. I saw your comments at talk:abortion and was about to comment favorably on your thoughtfulness, but then I saw this:

OrangeMarlin is either woefully ignorant of medical literature, or being deliberately provocative.

I wonder if it was really necessary to make such personal remarks? You might have said, instead, that you disagree with his interpretation of medical literature. Consider, also, a review of Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks and Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If he actually refered to medical literature then I would say that I disagreed with his interpretation. He does not however. I appreciate your advice to stay cool, and shall endeavour to do so. DMSBel (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion

Fetal death is the sina qua non of abortion. You can have everything else, but without fetal death, you don't have abortion.

If the fetus is removed or expelled from the uterus and lives, it is not an abortion. In fact, it is malpractice for an abortionist to fail to kill the fetus during an abortion.
If one twin is removed or expelled from the uterus and dies but one remains intact in the womb, there is no "termination of pregnancy" (so the sina qua non of abortion cannot be the end of the pregnancy).

Do you disagree? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree that the one base abortion definition that is always accurate is: "death of a fetus/embryo"? My view is that this is the most basic and essential portion of any definition - and the only portion that is always valid no matter the circumstances. This definition is valid even for selective reduction or miscarriage of less than all multiple fetuses (in which the pregnancy continues despite the complete abortion). This definition is valid even for a spontaneous abortion in which a multiple fetus that dies and is absorbed by the uterus or by the other fetus so it is not expelled from the uterus. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you might find this interesting:"An abortion (i) terminates a pregnancy, ending the physical dependency relationship the fetus has to the mother, and (ii) terminates the life of the fetus, ending both its present functions as an organism and its ongoing development into a more complex one." - Source: Abortion and the Death of the Fetus, Steven l. Ross, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 3, Summer, 1982 (cited 19 times by other authors) 74.5.176.81 (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.176.81 (talk)

Yes I think I may have quoted from this writer earlier in the discussion. It's a well articulated definition. It certainly could be added to the ones we already have.DMSBel (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Backing down

You sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Because I have made all of three posts on Talk:Abortion in the last four days. NW (Talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just seemed it was getting a little heated between you and Michael C. Price. Maybe I misread the exchange of comments. Apologies. DMSBel (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be heated by any means. I'll keep your comment in mind though. Best, NW (Talk) 23:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion

You have violated 1RR today on the abortion page. If you do not self-revert, any noninvolved admin can block you. PhGustaf (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, looking into that. DMSBel (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I took it on myself to fix it. PhGustaf (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 Hours for Edit Warring/Violation of 1RR rule at Abortion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY 20:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DMSBel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Arbitrary block duration, no block duration tarriffs/guidelines clearly defined, or point me to them. Thanks DMSBel (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request does not address the issue(s) that resulted in your block. Tiderolls 21:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DMSBel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not given time to self-revert barely 5 mins from my reply to PhGustaf's revertion, had other things to do at the time. Also the previous edits (the night before) to the page were mangled between users, my revert then missed taking the page back to the stable version, the proper action in the aftermath of one editor guessing the results of a straw poll. DMSBel (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You actually reverted more than twice in a 24 hour period. I looked into the article's history, and you reverted one editor at 19:54 (UTC) on June 24, then at 13:11 (UTC) on June 25, and then again at 17:17 (UTC) on June 25. That's a total of 3 reverts in 24 hours. Even if you had undone your last revert, you'd still be in violation of 1RR. If you can't abide by the editing restrictions at that article, you might consider avoiding the article entirely. -- Atama頭 20:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello DMS, I see you've been raising a ruckus! May I suggest a change of pace? Why not try collaboration instead of confrontation? I'd like to recommend a great group of editors who are working together to make a difference here at Misplaced Pages. When you come off your block come check out a wonderful collaboration that we're just getting off the ground here. – Lionel 21:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well no, I have been trying to debate, but to some that's just not on! :-) The debate got a little straw-polarised! Tried to prevent that with no success. I'll take a look at that page, when I get off the block. Thanks. Best to you.

I know. I was there. Errr, still there... ;-) – Lionel 00:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

~~Test comment - time check~~ DMSBel (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I am against downplaying and against playing off A against B. I am for mentioning the relevant facts in a NPOV manner. Which means "death" goes in (important fact for debate), "viability" goes out (not a fact at all) and preceding a discussion of how save abortion is for the m... woman with a clear statement that the following is limited to exactly that maternal health. That abortion is very unsave for the fetus should be clear even to those that don't give a damn and I never suggested adding such a disclaimer - as long as the pertinent "death" fact is included, that is. Str1977 17:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, the block has expired: 72 hours beginning 20:19 25 June. Would you let me know why general editing restrictions are still in place? There was no block notice on my IP page, but as that is still blocked it is restricting my editing when signed in. Thanks.DMSBel (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be lifted now. DMSBel (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abortion_lead_sentence_-_straw_poll_consensus

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Roy Boy 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I am confined to my talk page for not toeing the line! Thanks for letting me know. Btw I was thinking over the self-revert (while hoovering the flat) but I couldn't see that I strictly did anything wrong. I know that's what a lot say, however the edits the night before were mangled so that my simple revert didn't actually restore the stable version of the lede, otherwise the page would have been back to normal.

You restored your revert after I had given you an informal 1RR warning. This was not wise, given the number of admins watching these pages. PhGustaf (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "restored...revert after", I hope you're not suggesting I reverted it back to the previous version after you reverted. You need to explain your comment. DMSBel (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For information (its all in the edit history anyway): PhGustaf reverted my edit, and I later added two tags and with edit summaries, necessitated by the revert to a non-consensus (straw poll based) version of the lede first sentence. Can you explain how that is restoring my revert?DMSBel (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, he can't. He just wants you to shut up and go away.71.3.232.238 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know he can't. Thanks. Can you feel the Wiki-love tonight! DMSBel (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

DRN

Please try to make your edit agsin, your edit to add comments also made a huge amount of other changes and I've undone the edit. Thanks. Steven Zhang 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What huge amount of changes? Would you like me to add my last comment again (I can't see what changes that made), and not the question about "How is death a point of view?" DMSBel (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the diff which has the edit you made, somehow you managed to add back several old sections that had been archived, and removed some sections that had been added since then. Steven Zhang 03:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As you knew the previous content of that page better than me, I won't argue with what you are saying, but I honestly don't know how that happened, it might be to do with the diff link I followed to get to the page. However it happened I apologise for that and thankyou for asking me to make my edit again. DMSBel (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

POV much?

Are we to take this comment as your admission that you are unable to edit that article neutrally? If so, full marks for self-knowledge. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No you can take that as a comment on the talk page. I'm at least as neutral as OrangeMarlin on that topic I'd guess. At least I just am going by experienced admin who know the history of the article and defending the consensus. Isn't that what we're supposed to do on Misplaced Pages?? You surely don't contort your mind to accept every word wikipedia says do you? Sometimes you hold onto a view, in spite of consensus, no?DMSBel (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't

Break up other editors' comments with your own. It's very annoying and frowned upon for a number of good reasons. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 12:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You are quite right. Kind of did it because, the attention span of some editors seems rather short, at least I keep getting asked "what source?", "where does it say that?". Up the page perchance? :-)

I know, it is very tempting. Later, though, the discussion becomes unreadable... -- cheers, Michael C. Price 17:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

These sorts of comments aren't particularly civil, it would be best to adopt a slightly less confrontational approach in the future, if you could. Thanks. Prodego 22:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, if after reviewing the matter you have to block me thats fine, I hope you'll be evenhanded. If you can propose a better approach I'll certainly consider it. DMSBel (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

It's a tough subject at Misplaced Pages. Thanks for taking the time to work on it. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Medical Dictionary and Definitions in general (Do the proposed lead definitions follow these guidelines?)

(I hope someone will post this on the talk:abortion page.)

As we consider the definition contained in the lead, we should consider what wikpipedia suggests should be true about medical dictionary definitions:

In medical dictionaries, definitions should to the greatest extent possible be:

Simple and easy to understand, preferably even by the general public

Useful clinically or in related areas where the definition will be used.

Specific, that is, by reading the definition only, it should ideally not be possible to refer to any other entity than the definiendum.

Measurable

Reflecting current scientific knowledge

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.

2.Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as 'a member of the species equus' would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locking adds that a definition of a term must not comprise of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define 'antecedent' without using the term 'consequent', nor conversely.

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).

4.The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity. (See the definition of Free will in Misplaced Pages, for instance).

5.A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define 'wisdom' as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. We cannot define a point except as 'something with no parts', nor blindness except as 'the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted'.

We should also consider what wikipedia says about definitions at the beginning of wikipedia articles:

Good definitions

Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions:

First, those who collaborate on this opus must oblige themselves to define everything, without exception
— Diderot

Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.

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.
— Definition

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) 21:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll keep this for reference, as I had not seen this before, thankyou. But you would be better to register if you can. I have no objection to you speaking to me on my talk page, but other editors may not see things the same. As you know I didn't agree with the ban, its not even-handed treatment, but I cannot do anything more. Be patient until consensus is re-established for the compromise version. DMSBel (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WTF! DMSBel indeed I do not see it the same way; its a problem, specifically of action taken, poor formatting (yellow? and lots of it), and lack of pruning. - Roy Boy 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's on my talk page, so I am not really bothered. I have found it helpful, even in yellow :-) It takes me busy finding stuff on wikipedia at times, and I'd like to keep this here. It definitely should not be put directly into the article talk page. I hope I didn't give that impression in my reply. If the IPs ban covers talk pages he should refrain from sending me information. I certainly won't be putting this onto the talk page. But it might be of use to me for reference besides the Abortion article, thats why I want to keep it, strangely it may well be the most useful message I have got since I joined. But I concur that the IP should not send it to anyone else. DMSBel (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I posted here because it was put on my talk page as well; and you accurately predicted others wouldn't view it kindly. - Roy Boy 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

RobBoy I didn't realise it was posted on your talk page also until you replied here. I agree this editor should desist from posting anything else in relation to subject on talk pages until registered or until their ban is removed. Even though the ban was heavy handed they might be better to accept it. It would seem though that it would have made more sense to just let the editor contrib, and issue a polite warning, if their contribs had been disruptive, until repeated infractions occured. We now have the rather daft situation were unregistered editors cannot discuss changes to the article, but can make them. The talk page protection should be removed it violates a basic principle of wikipedia that anyone is allowed to contribute. If one of the IP addresses is a public computer, perhaps at a library or internet cafe, then it might well be two different editors accessing wikipedia at different times. Is it really so strange that both those users might have similiar POV? There are not that many POVs on the subject. If it is two different editors, even if they know each other and have pretty much the same POV there cannot be a block violation if one make contribs on that public computer while the other is blocked, as the block applies to an individual editor and not the IP address. DMSBel (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

← You're consistently wrong about how sockpuppetry is handled here. It's worth reading the relevant policy, but to save time, I'll excerpt it here:

Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Misplaced Pages's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

So, according to policy, two editors who "know each other and have pretty much the same POV" are to be treated as a single user for purposes of sockpuppetry, block evasion, etc. Either the IPs belong to one user, or they are closely related accounts editing with the same objectives and participating in the same disputes. Either way, the policy on multiple accounts and block evasion applies, and it is appropriate to treat the IPs as, functionally, a single user. MastCell 16:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks looking into that. DMSBel (talk) 16:48, 19 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 January 2, 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. 19:42, 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

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) 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DMSBel. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Abortion workshop notificaiton

By way of notification, I have made proposals at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop involving your account. MastCell 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added to an currently open Arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 9714637, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=9714637 instead.
^ Template:Broken doi
Diderot, Denis, "Encyclopedia", Philip Stewart, trans., in The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Ann Arbor: Scholarly Publishing Office of the University of Michigan Library, 2002.
Note: they must not be largely or completely related only by the titular term
Dictionary of lexicography By R. R. K. Hartmann, Gregory James