Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cocoaguy (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 27 April 2007 (→Fetus blob images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007.

RfC

You are misusing the RfC. RfC on articles are to help settle deadlocked disputes over content. Your RfC is specifically about user conduct. There are specific RfC for users called "Request comment on users". I urge you to please read the directions on WP:RfC carefully and reconsider your recent actions. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C, this is all about content, isn't it? I believe that the reverted content should be included in the article. Other editors disagree. Why are you characterizing this as a dispute about user conduct? It is about whether the reverted content will be included.Ferrylodge 02:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Question about Advocacy

Sorry, I wasn't able to reply to your message sooner. I have been out of town since Friday and did not have time to leave a wikibreak message. As to your inquiry: We don't have an Advocate or Advocacy Team that deals specifically with what you're describing, as generally all of our Advocates are well versed enough to handle such an issue, so if you place a standard Advocacy request you should be covered. If you hit a snag, however, don't hesitate to contact me again. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

US v. Morrison

I see you're interested in keeping US v. Morrison up to date. I think you're doing a great job!

I don't have time to do it, but I think the 2d paragraph of the equal protection section is a bit of a non-sequitur. I tacked on that last section to reconcile how the court's opinions differ between the early opinions and this case with respect to complex remedial legislation under 14:5. In the past, the courts have found this OK (i.e. 18 U.S.C. 241-42; 1983 suits) but here they do not. The key reason is that the private remedy against individual actors was geared toward correcting state action in the first instance, but does not have that effect under VAWA. Maybe you can rewrite the section?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.9.56 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Is this the paragraph that you're objecting to? "The Court responded that the Fourteenth Amendment limits the manner in which Congress may remedy discrimination, and requires that a civil remedy be directed at a State or state actor instead of a private party. The Fourteenth Amendment, said the Court, prohibits only state action – i.e., action by state governments – and not private conduct." How is this a non-sequitur?Ferrylodge 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded but on the page for my IP, I don't know how to get it here!

I think you may want to take a brief look at Morrison. Hope all is well. Hydriotaphia 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Fourteenth and the children of immigrants

Last edit looks good. Sorry if it felt to you like I was following you around, but I didn't want 'anchor baby' to be the primary term of reference, as I think it's non-NPOV.

Thanks for your edits.Rocketfairy 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It looks okay now. Thanks.Ferrylodge 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Overly controlling behavior

Could you stop the trivial pretexts for acting as if I need your permission to do anything, and the threats?Jimmuldrow 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I never made any threats. If you want to accuse me of making threats, then please use quotations.Ferrylodge 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Feticide

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages, Ferrylodge! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Misplaced Pages. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Misplaced Pages's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Misplaced Pages, please note that inserting spam into Misplaced Pages is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA

Sure thanks for telling (most people don't) and i thank you for your kindness. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What did you do at talk:fetal pain?

Please consider undoing your last edit at talk:fetal pain. You have filled the page with a copy and paste of another editor's contribution list. How does that help other editors discuss the article content of fetal pain? In addition to filling talk pages with junk, I'd ask that you not bring up personal issues on talk pages. Consider using User talk if you have a personal issue that deals with one editor in specific.-Andrew c 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I have replaced the pasted summary with a link. The rest of my comment at talk:fetal pain was an explanation of why I removed the NPOV tag. It would have been very inappropriate to remove the tag without explaining at talk_fetal pain, so that's what I did. Please see that page for further discussion.Ferrylodge 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mean to say your whole comment was useless (because it clearly wasn't). Just the 'junk' part, which you removed. Thanks for doing that.-Andrew c 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent commons uploads

Not sure how often you check your commons account, so I am contacting you here. Please read this. The image you uploaded was once on the commons until it was discovered the US Government didn't hold the copyright. Sorry. I know we really could use some good images of fetuses, so thanks for trying. Hopefully, something even better will come up.-Andrew c 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the image. I will continue to look for an image that does not include any white married male in the image, since that is forbidden here at Misplaced Pages. Acceptable but for copyright problem: Forbidden due to race, gender, and marital status, even without copyright problem: .Ferrylodge 06:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-Catholic bigotry"

My edit to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was not an act of bigotry. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban on so-called "partial birth abortions" was a 5-4 vote, and all 5 supporting the ban are self-described as members of the Catholic faith. Catholics view abortion as a "sin", and this may have swayed the opinion of the five Catholic justices. A previous judgment (Stenberg v. Carhart) went the other way because no Catholic majority was in place. -- Scjessey 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Catholics do and some don't. It is because of the Catholic Anthony Kennedy that Roe was not overturned in 1992. It is because of the Catholic Edward Kennedy that Robert Bork was defeated. Please let's leave religion out of this article.Ferrylodge 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fetus blob images

I'd appreciate your feedback over at the commons Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images based on 4parents. I've created proposed replacement images for the fetus blobs per your concerns and wanted to see what you thought of the idea.-Andrew c 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA case

I am sorry i have been un-able to do much on wikipedia over the last month. I will find someone else to help you. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs 02:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)