This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.177.90.39 (talk) at 07:50, 11 June 2005 (→The three-revert rule). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:50, 11 June 2005 by 70.177.90.39 (talk) (→The three-revert rule)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)The three-revert rule
Once again, in regards to the abortion article. You will be suspended if you violate the three-revert rule. Eyeon 16:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Concerning your edits in the Abortion article: Please read Wikipedias policy of neutral point of view:Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.--Fenice 16:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Please remember NPOV. 70.177.90.39 07:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
Your contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but Abortion is a very controversial article. Articles on wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view, so please discuss changes to the page on its talk page. --Mike C | talk 16:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Help on finding the talk page
Talk pages are also called discussion pages. You find them by clicking on the second tab above the article. There you can add your remarks and also all kinds of speculations. In this specific case you find the talk page to oral contraceptives click here.--Fenice 12:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Abortion
Please remember the NPOV rule. 70.177.90.39 07:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please do not make edits that express a point of view, your assertion that some feminists support abortion beacues it allows women to be sexually irresponsible needs to be backed up by references if is going to appear in the article--nixie 06:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Again, please discuss your changes on the talk page. --nixie 06:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Why are the NPOV stats on reasons for choosing abortion gone?
- The purpose of the page is not to speculate as to why women have abortions or to comment on those reasons, it is to discuss a medical procedure. --nixie 06:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Then why is the political and legal information there? That information gives no information about the medical procedure.
Thanks, 214..., for removing my leftovers from "political parties" at the abortion entry. Str1977 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear 214..., I don't know whether you read this, but Fenice is on the prowl again, trying to enforce feminist orthoxy in regard to "Feminists For Life" on the Abortion page. Str1977 10:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks 214... for pushing Fenice to posting a version I think acceptable. It doesn't mention FFL specifically, but it acknowledges that there are pro-life feminists - and not in a segregated sub-section. I think that's all we can achieve over there. Thanks again. Str1977 17:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks 214... for pointing this out. I have answered to David's "mantra" on the Abortion talk page. Str1977 18:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Civil rights
Again: read the talk page before making changes. Announce your changes on the talk pages - before you make them, especially on controversial subjects like abortion. --Fenice 12:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Contributions
- I'd also like your input on Talk:Oral contraceptive. Fenice is worried that some of the material you insert is biased. I'd like to hear your opinion before I choose sides. JFW | T@lk 11:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Please mind the Misplaced Pages:NPOV policy on Misplaced Pages; also, please be carfeul not to reiterate edits such as , probably a false manoeuver, but which could be misunderstood by other users. Thank you. Rama 16:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I have given abundant reason why the American Cancer Society does not need to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of cervical cancer. Your POV-pushing is getting very annoying. Please desist, or face a request for comments on your behaviour. JFW | T@lk 13:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Abortifacient
It is better to bring up POV issues on the talk page than to unilaterally delete content. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
WP:RFC
You have been made the subject of a request for comments. Perhaps you may wish to comment. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- I believe you are supposed to put all your comments into the one section "response". Judging from similar pages this page does not work like a regular discussion page.--Fenice 11:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think you can add your discussion-contributions on this issue on the talk page of this RFC-page.--Fenice 12:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello all - Just to catch you up:
Today, to resolve a conflict, I posted this to Fenice's talk page in a section with other similar comments from other Wikipedians on the exact same topic:
- Fenice, at this point, the Pearl index data listed is from extremely "pro-contraceptive" sources. Is there a dispute with the data? What is it? If you do not satisfactoriyl explain the dipsute you have with the actual data - besides it being surprising or disappointing to you - to gain concensus, then I will pursue other means to remove the POV tag you have placed. RIght now its placement violates the rule and spirit of Misplaced Pages. 214.13.4.151 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fenice erased it and replied with this:
- Please stop vandalizing other peoples user pages.--Fenice 05:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fenice, I tried to communicate with you. Clearly you reject that attempt at dialogue. I am reposting it on my talk page and on the abortion discussion page so that all can see how princippled you are. I thought you would be open and objective and in accord with Misplaced Pages's stated goals and principles. Sorry to trouble you with simple reuest for discourse. I will not be going away.214.13.4.151 05:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have expressed more than clearly that I want to stay out of this, so stop bullying me. Aren't you ever embarrassed?--Fenice 06:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fenice, you have not expressed anything clearly about what is in dispute about the Pearl index information now posted. It is all properly sourced and, since YOU introduced the Pearl language (or at least pressed hard for it being included) it is so very odd that you now want objective Pearl data obfuscated by placing a POV warning. You are embarassed by the Pearl data, and now want it hidden. Birht Control pills fail quite regularly. You don't want women to know that. How sad. Talk about embarassment.214.13.4.151 06:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think it has little to do with embarassment but more with incredulity. I tend to side with Fenice that the numbers quoted are still rather wild. Are you sure there is no more conservative estimate. From my own experience in clinical practice, the pill does not fail very often, and certainly not as often as this high Pearl index would indicate. Until then there's this worry about selective quoting, although you appear to be acting in good faith here. JFW | T@lk 13:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind comment. The purpose of the RFC was to express my worry about NPOV. I remember myself as a new user having problems with NPOV - oldtimers just get very jumpy when new users make assertions that have a hint of bias (even if this is unintended). We've had too many invasions from pro- and anti-Christians, -Semites, -Creationsists, -Circumcisionists and what have you.
Looking forward to working together in the future. One of the benefits of our "argument" is that the concept of the Pearl index is now prominently on the OCP page. JFW | T@lk 13:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
W. Mark Felt
Hi! Thanks for contributing to the article on W. Mark Felt. I notice that you have moved The Washington Times link you supplied to the top of the list of external links several times. I have just opened a discussion about this on Talk:W. Mark Felt, outlining why the links are listed in the order they are. I hope you'll consider joining in the dialogue and explaining your point of view. Jokestress 15:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |