Yonmei

Hi Yonmei, thanks for your message on my talk page! I looked up the page you referred to, Leah Luv, and I saw that you placed a "prod" tag on the page which an anonymous user removed. A "prod" tag can be placed on a page only once, when you think it should be deleted and don't think that anyone would disagree. Since someone disagreed (the anonymous user when he or she removed the tag), the next step to try to get the page deleted is to nominate and list it at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. This link will take you to a page listing three things you have to do to first tag the page for deletion, create a deletion page where other users can give their opinions on whether or not they agree with the deletion, and add the deletion page to the list of proposed deletions for today.

Based on looking at Leah Luv, I think an AFD (article for deletion) might not work - there is a proposed Wikipedia policy on the notability of porn actors, located here: Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). (Also, all biographical pages must meet the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people).) One of the guidelines for notability is that the actor must have at least 100 movies to his or her credit. According to Leah Luv's IMDB.com page, she has been in 98 movies since 2003, though I don't know if they are heterosexual or homosexual porn. Also searching for her name in quotes on Google yields 386,000 hits, though I don't know how many are relevant (all those on the first page are). In light of those things, it could be argued that she does meet Wikipedia's notability standards.

Please let me know if you have any more questions or need any more help :). Fabricationary 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fabricationary (or may I call you Fab!) that's extremely helpful, both in the particular (this Leah Luv page) and in general. I did look at the specs for "non-notable porn stars" but I missed the "100 movies" requirement. 98 is close enough for tap-dancing. ;-)

Yonmei 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:Yonmei/Pride in Aberdeen, please tag for speedy when you're done with it. Guy 22:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops! Sorry, will do. Assumed when I saw "new messages" that it was just another repeat of the comments from this anonymous vandalizer who's been bugging me all evening. Glad it's not: thanks very much for your help. Yonmei 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are making a mistake about the father. 75.3.23.157 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No - I am cleaning up a biographical article that has had verified information about the subject removed. Let's continue this discussion on the Talk page where it belongs. Yonmei 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is no verified information on the subject, he never said he was gay. 75.3.23.157 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some verified information on the subject Yonmei 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is an unreliable source. No one's name is attached to it. 75.3.23.157 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some more verified information on the subject Yonmei 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a place to turn rumors into facts. If this was for any other issues for any other person, then the information would not be included. The only reason it is acceptable in the article is because of anti-Catholicism.

Many people have made many conspiracy theories, none of which are accepted as fact on wikipedia.

You might have a leg to stand on if you were consistent, but your edits are purely anti-Catholic. 75.3.23.157 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am not anti-Catholic, and you have already been asked today by User:Lordkazan to refrain from personal attacks. Yonmei 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why is it then you allow for the unproven attacks to stay in the article? 75.3.23.157 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are allowing your own POV to colour your opinion. To say that a man is gay is not an "attack", and it is a verified fact that Father Judge was gay.Yonmei 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You explanation, 3 people he knew said he was gay, and a few anti-Catholic groups have also said he was gay. 75.3.23.157 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have not cited any anti-Catholic groups. Please refrain from personal attacks and slurs - I have already asked you this twice.Yonmei 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, people that have worked with Chris Kattan on saturday night live have said he is gay. Yet Chris Kattan is not in any category identifying him as a homosexual? Why is that? Just because there aren't any hate groups that say he is a homosexual? If I created a website, didn't put my name on it, but declared on it that Chris Kattan was gay, then would he meet the qualifications to be in a gay category? 75.3.23.157 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As I have never edited an article about Chris Kattan, nor am I even sure who he is (nor do I care, sorry) this comment is irrelevant. Please stick to topic, and refrain from incivility. Yonmei 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have you heard of Bill Clinton? Why don't you add him to a gay category? Ann Coulter said he was a homosexual. 75.3.23.157 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I do not believe you have anything useful to add to this discussion. Please do not edit my Talk page with any further comments with regard to this issue. Yonmei 21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is against wikipedia's policy to just blank comments from your talk page. You should have your talk page archieved. 75.3.23.157 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please put all of the comments you have removed back in and I won't have to report you to an adminstrator. 75.3.23.157 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you have a problem with my behavior, please do take it up with an administrator. Yonmei 22:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you know when that link was added in and by who? I am guessing you don't or you wouldn't keep putting it back. We can't just add any random stuff to an article. There needs to be a reason for something to be included. The original editor who put that in did not give a reason nor have you. One article about a man is not notable. There are many articles about the Cardinal, they are all not included. It is wikipedia's policy that not every article about a person is notable. That one article is not notable. 75.3.23.157 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You can't just remove any random stuff from an article.

Nor should you have used Bill Clinton as a sandbox, which I take it the addition of an article by Ann Coulter was intended to be. Yonmei 22:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ann Coulter's claims are no different than that one priests claims. 75.3.23.157 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is this an acknowledgement by you that in adding the link to that article by Ann Coulter to the Bill Clinton page, you were deliberately doing something you believe to be wrong? Yonmei 07:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you noticed, I removed content from Moore Catholic High School, why haven't you put that back in? 75.3.23.157 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As another editor has already pointed out to you: WP:POINT. Don't edit a page to "make a point". Yonmei 08:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't act like you know anything, it's clear you are new to wikipedia or you would be responding on my talk page, not your own, or you would leave a message on my page that you responded on my talk page and also leave a message on your talk page stating this is where you would respond. 75.3.23.157 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC

Since it's evident you're reading my Talk page with much more attention than you give your own, why should I give myself the trouble of going over to yours unless I have something to say to you that the administrators ought to read? Yonmei 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Reading the article, I am not persuaded that his activities vis-a-vis gay life would fall under the rubric of "activism." I think that both in the name of accuracy as well as consensus-building with other editors we should consider it sufficient that his orientation is openly discussed, and he is listed under the present categories. Regards, Haiduc 10:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

We don't all start with the same baggage. Haiduc 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yonmei, you have no proof that he was an activist. You only have ignorant beliefs that if a person is gay, then they must be a gay activist. This is not true. Yonmei, your hateful nature shines through in every message. 75.3.23.157 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from personal attacks. I have added a note to your report on the WP:PAIN page. Yonmei 17:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

(Titled by "75.3.23.157" Try to be reasonable)

You are not familar with what you are trying to edit now. For instance, the Stroger Crisis had nothing to do with Daley. He had no involvement, he just made one comment on it, that is not enough though to make a whole section about in his encyclopedia entry. That situation is related to John Stroger, not Richard M. Daley. Most of those sections were put in by an anon. user and they are highly biased. Some of them were small news stories, some of which were unrelated to the man the article is about. They also contain highly POV phrasing. Some of the news that might be worthy of mentioning, but are not worthy of an entire section dedicated to it. They would just belong as sentences in the current events section, but a lot of that information added is unrelated to the man the topic about. It is related to Chicago politics, but not directly related to the mayor. I am asking you to be reasonable on this and not allow a wikipedia article's quality to be sacrificed because you have a personal grudge against me. I hope you can respond back to this and be reasonable, not confrontational. 75.3.23.157 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

- - Yes, all of his "contributions" have been erased, but not just by me. I think I will send a thank you to Deleuze. I'm glad to hear that you have Important Work--my brain is apparently too small. :-)MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yonmeni - thanks for the prompt - missed sig off by mistake - Sorted now. Taken your request about this out now - hope that's OK. Cheers, --Leigh 13:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 07:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

... lest you violate WP:3RR. this is a warning. i'll report the violation if you do it. r b-j 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the 3RR warning: appreciated. Of course, you are also at the 3RR limit for Homophobia for the next 24 hours, as is CC80. It will doubtless do us all good to leave it be for a day. Yonmei 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

actually i have 1 revert for the day on that article. an edit does not necessarily mean a revert. BTW, you can respond here, i'll watch your talk page. i think that is the normal Wiki protocol. r b-j 00:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this notice because you have recently commented on Talk:Alexander the Great. You may be interested in the mediation case located here. It is my hope that mediation will help solve the debate, but you are welcome to participate or not participate as you choose. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have not been removing material from the homophobia article. All I have been doing is ADDING comments to the discussion page.

This comment was made on 10:20, 3 November 2006 by Rglong, who for some reason seems to forget to sign/date his comments quite a lot (and who did, in fact, accidentally blank quite large chunks of Talk:Homophobia, evidently without even noticing that he'd done it).

is it against policy to put an essay published about this author such as the crtic on orson scott card which, unless im mistaken, you deleted?

if not then leave it and let a discussion be brought to the subject so that the conclusions, which are relevant, can be debated and used by everyone to help illuminate OSC's political views.

This comment was made by 82.255.139.101, at 22:36, 4 November 2006. For some reason, this user didn't think to sign and date their comment.

Yes, it is against wikipedia policy (and illegal) to post copyrighted material on Wikipedia. You will see a summary of wikipedia policy on this issue below every editing window on Wikipedia. It reads: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted."

Please sign and date your comments in future. Yonmei 23:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I now think it was a mistake to pipe the names in the categories Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, and Guantanamo Bay detainees. Most of those names are Arabic names. And they don't follow the convention we have in most European names. It makes sense to order European names on the last name, or surname, because it is inherited by children.

IMO, it doesn't make sense for Arabic names. They don't have a "surname" the way we understand it. Their names works more like old Norse names, or names in Iceland. Consider Nasrat Khan's son Hiztullah Nasrat Yar. Khan's "first name" becomes Hiztullah's "last name". Kind of like "Eric the Red" and his son, "Lief Ericson". So, IMO, it doesn't make sense to sort on last name. I noted this in the new Guantanamo categories I created.

Does this make sense to you?

You recently piped some of the articles you added to these new categories. If you don't agree with me, can we discuss this further, before you sort more articles on the person's last name?

Thanks!

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I have seen a couple of people make this mistake. You put your reply on User:Geo Swan, not User Talk:Geo Swan. You probably know this. Additions to a contributor's User Talk page cause the wikipedia to give you a heads-up. But contributions to their User page doesn't.

I was wondering why I hadn't seen a reply from you. And now I think you were probably wondering why I wasn't reply.from me.

Oh well. I am going to move your comment to my talk page, and respond there.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

That fellow who has studied Arabic did offer his opinion on the optimal sort orders for Arabic names.

But, like I said, trying to put those names into a last-name, first-name order is a temptation that is going to continue to occur over and over again, because people will follow the examples of organizations like the DoD and the Washington Post.  :-) -- Geo Swan 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, from a third perspective (mine) it doesn't really seem like RBJ is attacking you at this article. Can you be more specific as to what statement you're actually talking about? CaveatLector^Talk 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw this and felt exhausted at the thought of providing you with every damn example of where RBJ is trying to turn this into a personal attack on me rather than discussing the issue, but RBJ just did it for me - and still seems to think that none of this constitutes a personal attack. Yonmei 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yonmei - thank you for your message. I'm here to add in my two cents. I don't feel qualified to comment on the different opinions on the wording of the Homophobia page, but from what I've seen on the article's talk page, your talk page, RBJ's talk page, and the mediation page, I'd say you've done a great job at staying calm and polite, and refraining from personal attacks. RBJ seems like a very intelligent guy (that stuff about electrical engineering on his talk page went way over my head) but has been blocked several times for 3RR violations. Both he and you seem interested and perhaps personally invested in the topic of homophobia/LBGT rights, and it's to be expected when two such people meet, especially online, that there'll be some disagreements. I don't know how this issue started, but in its current state, I'd advise you to continue to be courteous and perhaps stop using those templates about personal attacks. If I were RBJ and I got those posted on my talk page or on other Wikipedia pages, no matter my intentions, I could see how I could be a bit put off if someone kept implying that I was making personal attacks and informing me of the consequences. Both you and RBJ have been here a while, so I'm confident that you two know the ropes, whereas the best use for the personal attack template (in my opinion) is for a new user who may, perhaps out of inexperience with internet socializing in general, be a bit too brash towards others. However, I don't find anything objectionable about how you've handled the situation so far, but please remember that while your passion and effort to share your knowledge here is noble, there comes a point where you have to detach yourself and your investment from a page that anyone in the world can edit (though not now since the page is protected, hehe). It's tempting to always put in the last word, but your previous words and actions here are readily available, unalterable, and will make a stronger statement for your case than repeated iterations. I hope mediation goes well and the situation improves. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Fabricationary 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to be talking about this subject, which I suspect you might be starting to get sick of, but I've been looking at it, reading the talk page, and would like to make a contribution, but don't feel entirely qualified until I know exactly what the homophobic elements of the article are. I (think) I can see what you mean in the ""Homophobia" as applied to political figures" section, but might have missed some, and you seem qualified to know. Cheers =) Gekedo 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

A LGBT Barnstar (currently under proposal) is hereby awarded to Yonmei for his/her tireless efforts to combat homophobia on the pages of Wikipedia, particularly on the homophobia article page itself. Keep up the good work. Wikipedia needs more members like you. Jeffpw 08:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• And here's a tag you might find useful:

  The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

  Jeffpw 12:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

"His" ... hee-hee. That's quite an assumption about someone who hasn't (afaik) identified gender @ wiki. --LQ 12:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Oops and damn! Where's that damn OOPS userbox when you need one!?! I just checked out your userpage and saw the Feminist userbox....and what's worse is that *I* had a "non-sexist prose" userbox on my page 'til I blanked the page. Thank you for accepting this award in the spirit it was intended.

yours in chagrin,

Jeff

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sixty_Six - He has a pretty long history if your interested. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have alot of things I do here on Wikipedia. I have already suggested a compromise for the definition What other issues are there? -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw you took that paragraph off of Homophobia. I figured I would say "good job" on that. I agree that death threats of this type are rare. Peace. See also: wikipedia:wikilove MPS 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to suggest that you take the case to WP:MEDCOM. This issue seems pretty heated. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um hello, I have not gone on to many talk pages and I don't know what the etiquette is but you gave some points of view on the talk page for pro life and I just wanted to ask what your opinion is on when the fetus becomes human, I just don't fully understand the pro choice POV very well at all, you seem like an intelligent person with well thought out arguments and I don't get many of those in my day to day life. It seems that both sides of the issue are focusing to much on emotion by far, one side states that their protecting woman's rights and the fetus is a thing like an organ and the other side screams murderer. Neither side makes their argument particularly well, instead relying on politics, whether it be the politics of feminism or the politics of religion. I would just like some clarification on when you feel human life starts?. It seems to me, speaking strictly from a POV that life has to start from conception, if the fetus is constantly growing and becoming fully human it has to be alive doesn't it?, and if we accept the premise it does then how can it not be human?. I apologise if I bothered you or if I'm stepping on toes, I just honestly would like to know what the pro choice position is (I ralize its on the pro choice page but I would really like a layman's explanation of when life begins) I admit freely I am pro life and Catholic but I am Pro life on purely secular humanist and medical grounds. It just seems to me that science is pretty on side with the concept that a fetus is a seperate person (different fingerprints, DNA, development of its own heart and lungs) as an aside I would say that I was born at twenty seven weeks in 1981 and so know that full gestation is not required. If I bother you please tell me so, I really don't mean to bug and I just want to understand the issue better, I find that the pro choice articles NPOV makes it difficult, This is of course the best policy but I find that after forming an opinion that is by its nature a POV it is difficult to understand the other side with a NPOV, I am more looking for a pro choice POV explained as a regular person understands it, rather than a generalized political POV explained in an NPOV manner. I should also say I would never consider editing any of the abortion related topics due to the fact that I have a clear bias. I am sorry again for bothering you and the length of this addition.Colin 8 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am pro-choice because I consider that women are human beings, with full human rights, which ought not be removed because a woman is pregnant. That is, at no point in a woman's pregnancy do I believe that she ought to have the right to make decisions about her own body removed from her.

I know some pro-lifers then argue that a pregnant woman does not have the right to make decisions about the life of the fetus. But this is effectively an argument that someone other than the pregnant woman ought to have a right to make decisions about her body: because it is not possible to make decisions about the welfare of a human fetus that do not involve making decisions about a woman's body.

The argument about exactly when a fetus "becomes human" is, I believe, a red herring. When making the case for being pro-choice on ethical or moral grounds, I stick to the point that the pregnant woman is human, not an incubator, and that removing her right to decide whether to terminate or continue her pregnancy is to treat her as an incubator, not a human being.

Pregnancy is an activity that requires immense effort and energy from most women. (Women who assert otherwise are in general in good health, not required to do manual labour during their pregnancy, and receiving adequate nourishment and nutrients for their pregnancy: they are not aware of the effort it entails because everything is made relatively easy for them.) The hormonal changes in pregnancy can cause some women extreme mental distress: the physical demands of pregnancy can cause some women temporary or permanent physical harm, or even kill. To argue that women ought to be forced through pregnancy regardless of mental or physical damage is an extreme violation of human rights.

The argument that fetuses ought to be protected seems stronger on the face of it, but if you remember that women are human beings, and not incubators or slaves, it's only sensible to accept that you cannot protect fetuses by harming pregnant women - and pragmatically, any nation that passes anti-choice legislation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to decide to have an abortion, will see an immense rise in the maternal morbidity rate, as well as (of course) an increase in women dying or being made sterile in illegal abortions.

A woman who does not want to be pregnant will seek out an abortion. (The abortion rate in the US did not change either up or down when abortion became legal in 1973.) The only choice the legislature can make is to ensure that a woman who wants an abortion can have one safely, legally, and as early as possible - or to ensure that women who want abortions will be compelled to have abortions more unsafely and more likely to be later in pregnancy, which raises the possibility (if the abortion occurs after the 15th week) that the fetus might be able to feel pain (prior to the 15th week of development, this is a physical impossibility).

In summary, I am pro-choice not because of any belief I have about when a fetus becomes human, but because I believe that a woman is human, pregnant or not. I am pro-choice because I believe all human beings have the right to decide for themselves about what they will do with their own bodies: I do not support forced blood transfusion, forced organ transfer, or forced pregnancy. People own their own bodies. They do not own anyone else's. Only a woman can decide what she will do when she becomes pregnant.

I hope this helps you understand the pro-choice position. Other people identifying as pro-choice might answer differently, of course: I don't pretend to be an ultimate authority. Yonmei 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the reply I just wanted to thank you for the response to my question. I have to say that well my view hasn't intrinsicly changed your response did give me a lot to think about. Your point about woman not being human incubators is well taken, I certainly have little desire to take away anybody's freedom. On a practical level your point about how the number of abortions has not increased since roe vs wade is enlightening as it seems to me that from a pro-life point of view it is clearly better for the same number of woman to have a safe clinical abortion than a back alley abortion. The one point I have to make is that from a personal perspective the point when seperate life begins is not a red herring, it is a central issue that I honestly feel needs to be resolved one way or the other. If there has not been an increase in the number of abortions in the countries which allow abortions then from a practical level there is no real problem, since the entire reason I am pro-life is because I wan't to protect life and lessen suffering. I think that the number of woman who suffer real emotional distress after getting an abortion is substantial, though to say its a majority or even a large minority would be arguable as I just don't know. But from a purely moral perspective I think that the question of life is a real problem. From either side of the fence it seems that it would be useful to know one way or the other, is a fetus seperate life from conception or from birth? (I do not think the view that life suddenly appears at some indeterminate point is science, though if I am wrong correct me). If we knew that it was not seperate life it would end the philisophical debate completely, if we could determine that the fetus was a seperate human being from conception abortion may be still be needed because of practical considerations (it is clearly better for woman to recieve competent medical care from a doctor than to subject themselves to terrible techniques of varied skill by a tradesperson, for lack of a better word). There are also other problems, I cannot say for sure, but it seems common sense to me that the number of woman pressured into an abortion would be much higher with it being a legal, clinical procedure than illegal and unsafe as it was. My point is this, if it was possible to prove that seperate, independent life began at conception, then would it not be immoral to take said life?. Also, your point about pain beginning at fifteen weeks raises some questions. is it moral to abort a fetus after that point?. Are partial birth abortions ethical?. And the question of the constant improvements in premature care, babies have been born as early as just less than five months, is it ethical to abort something that could survive by itself outside the womb?. Its clear that if there is a choice between thirty thousand abortions performed in either a hospital or in some persons apartment its no choice at all to an ethical person. Anyway I thank you for your reply, I asked for a rational, intelligent response to my questions and got one. You are the first person to change my view on whether abortion should be outlawed, (though I never believed either the woman or doctors should be criminalized). Or if it may be a sad necessity. I honestly just want to understand the issues better and my only concern is reducing suffering overall. I would like to think that the questions I have raised are not without merit and hope I gave a good account of a reasonable pro-life viewpoint. Thank you very much for replying, if you ever feel like weighing in again I would be pleased to hear from you but please don't feel obligated, especially if I bother you with my prattle. I would also like to say that I understand your reasons for leaving wikipedia but I hope you reconsider. Wikipedia is grossly imperfect, but it could be so much better, it needs editors like yourself. Thank you again.74.120.34.172 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC) that was me, I forgot to sign inColin 8 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Colin, thanks for your response. Two points:

First, it is generally accepted by researchers that so-called post-abortion syndrome is a myth: and there is no reliable evidence suggesting that women generally suffer distress after deciding to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. (Obviously some women do suffer distress: and some women seem to focus their distress at life circumstances that forced them to decide to terminate on the abortion itself. But it is not a widespread reaction, and certainly not a medically recognised syndrome. Whereas the mental and physical distress that some women suffer because of an unwanted pregnancy is definite and well-documented.)

Second, the issue of fetal rights. My point here is the one I made above: even if you wish to grant a fetus all the rights of a human being, that still would not make it ethical to force a woman to carry a fetus against her will. If you have a healthy nine pints of blood and could donate a pint to save the life of someone dying, would that make it ethical for the law to force you to submit to having a pint of blood removed against your will? It would not: and neither does it make it ethical to force a woman to use her bodily resources against her will.

Finally, late-term abortions (21+ weeks) are rare and difficult to obtain (about 1% of all abortions are carried out after 21 weeks). As far as any data has ever shown, all late-term abortions are carried out from medical necessity, either because the woman's health requires it or because the fetus is, in the woman's judgement, too handicapped to be born. It seems to me extremely inappropriate to make any other legislation for late-term abortions other than "Only if medically necessary: the pregnant woman and her physician are the best judges of what is medically necessary in each individual case." Between 15 weeks (when it is theoretically possible that a fetus can begin to feel pain) and 24 weeks (at which time it is possible that a healthy fetus could survive outside the uterus) I think abortion ought only be carried out if necessary - but that the woman concerned and her physician are still the best judges of whether or not an abortion is necessary. After 24 weeks, I think (and I don't know a single country in the world in which this is not supported by regulation) that abortion can only be carried out if the fetus is either dead or not going to survive birth - in which case it would be pure cruelty to the woman to force her to face months of pregnancy knowing that she will not have a living child at the end of it.

Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term. When a late-term abortion is carried out, I am certainly opposed to any attempt to regulate on moral grounds what techniques can or can't be used in each instance. Medical ethics should prevail: the woman's health comes first. You will find more information about this at Intact dilation and extraction, which discusses late-term abortion techniques.

Okay, one final point: I know several people who would prefer to identify as pro-life, but who accept that in order to reduce human suffering and save lives, it is necessary that abortion should be legally and easily accessible to all women as early in an unwanted pregnancy as possible. Certainly any country which makes abortion illegal or hard to obtain always sees a rise in maternal morbidity as women who ought to have abortions for their own health cannot access them, and women who simply do not want to be pregnant access illegal abortions - which are always available, regardless of regulation, but are seldom as safe as legal abortions. Yonmei 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Remember When, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Paul^C/_T+ 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Probably even six months ago I would have contested the deletion of Remember When, but I don't think I'll bother: it's a notable project in the UK, and certainly in Scotland, but there's no way it would be considered notable by Americans, and I have learned the hard way that Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia. Yonmei 12:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't be silly. If you think the article can satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web) (if it is notable within the whole of those countries, that second point under criteria should be easy to satisfy) then you should remove the prod (which is all you need to do to nullify the proposal). To be honest I don't know the first thing about the article, but when I read it there was nothing there that jumped at me saying it was important other than the fact it is five years old. The problem is that the article doesn't assert why it is important and since it is that old it shouldn't be hard to provide some more context to the article. If you contribute to the article and show why it is notable, it won't get deleted. Paul^C/_T+ 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't be rude. I tried what you suggest for Pride in Aberdeen, and the page got deleted anyway: a bunch of Americans debated whether it was notable, decided that it wasn't, and voted to delete. Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia: and it is not worth non-Americans breaking their hearts trying to convince Americans to let it be anything else. Yonmei 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not being rude, I'm just surprised (and a little offended by your prejudiced view of American Wikipedia editors). Besides, I don't want a notable article to be deleted. The fact of the matter is there isn't enough information in the article to say one way or the other. You suggest that you have this information and refuse to add it to the article and are at the same time complaining about it being put up for deletion. I've added additional comments to the talk page of the article.Paul^C/_T+ 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you were being rude. And now you are being silly yourself. I figured out that Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia based on the evidence, not on "prejudice": I began editing Wikipedia rather naively assuming that it was indeed an international encyclopedia, but discovered over several months that it isn't, and never can be. I don't think it's worthwhile for non-Americans to put too much effort into editing an American encyclopedia, and especially not articles about topics which are non-notable from a US POV and which will therefore be deleted sooner or later. Yonmei 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I disagree with your opinion about my being rude, but you are welcome to it. I didn't mean to come across that way. Every Wikipedia article, whether American-based or not, needs to establish some standard of notability. There has to be some rationale in every article stating why the article is included in Wikipedia. The current text of the Remember When article, "Remember When is a community and oral history project founded in 2003 to record the histories of Edinburgh's LGBT communities." does not even begin to attempt to do this. It is very disingenuous and self-defeating for you to ignore this guideline. If you are interested in improving Wikipedia and you know that this article is notable (from any POV, American or not), I (an American...) will help to support your case if it is ever put up for deletion. If the article is not notable (which you have not even attempted to show), then you shouldn't complain about it being put up for deletion. Improve Wikipedia, don't just complain about it. If you feel there is something wrong, do something other than just complaining about Americans not understanding topics that are non-notable from a US POV. And it is prejudiced of you to just assume that I wouldn't be interested in keeping the article if it is notable in the UK or Scotland but not from a US POV. Paul^C/_T+ 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The working standard for "notability" in wikipedia is "Is it going to appear notable to Americans?" This is because the majority of editors on Wikipedia are Americans. If a wikipage appears non-notable to Americans, it will eventually be deleted. This is not "prejudice", it is direct experience. I can't think of any reason why Remember When would appear notable to American editors: it was a notable project in Scotland/the UK only. And so I see no reason to put any effort into editing a page that will be deleted no matter what I do. Yonmei 10:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let me take a different direction with this. Do you think the current article shows notability to Scottish/British editors? If so, can you please show me where it is in the article? If it doesn't and you don't see the value in adding it to the article, then you are making a disingenuous argument. Essentially what you are saying is you don't see value in spending any time on "non-notable" subjects [for Americans] and yet are upset when poor articles you think deserve to stay in Wikipedia but do not meet standards are put up for deletion. I don't think it is fair at all to get upset over this as long as the article isn't meeting basic standards. If there was an argument for notability on the page and we were discussing the merits of that, this would be a completely different discussion. Paul^C/_T+ 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, Paul, I'm not upset by an individual article that is not-notable to Americans being put up for deletion: that's what I now expect to happen to articles that are not-notable to Americans. That's why I have no intention of wasting any further time on editing it. You appear to be upset by this statement of my intentions, and are - perhaps? - projecting your feeling of upset on to me. Yonmei 23:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not certain that the sources you are citing meet WP's criteria for reliable, verifiable sources. This is why the section keeps getting removed. It definately does not meet the criteria for WP's original research standards, which is no original research. These protests need to be reported upon in a reliable, verifiable (non-self published) source and even then, the protest may not meet the standards of inclusion based on undue weight. Two confirmed purged journals out of 1.4 million does not seem to meet the standards for inclusion. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed that you reinserted the section "Self-incriminating account of sexual assault in 1962" in the Harlan Ellison article. I don't want to start a huge edit war over this, but I think it would be appropriate to discuss it on the talk page first. There seems to be general editorial consensus that this story is apocryphal and you state yourself on the talk page "...that the anecdote reads like a misogynistic fantasy that Ellison probably dreamed up..." I think most editors agree that this doesn't belong in the controversy section. If you still think it deserves a place in the article, please feel free to discuss it on the talk page.

By the way, I agree with you 100% that the Connie Willis fiasco belongs in the controversy section. This incident absolutely took place and caused a legitimate stir, forcing Ellison to make a comment. I'm sure some other editors will disagree with the wording, especially the sexual assault bit that seems to get everyone all riled up. I'll help you keep it in there though, as this event is a verifiable controversy. Sbacle 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

List of Ellen guest stars, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Ellen guest stars satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ellen guest stars and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Ellen guest stars during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

While assuming nothing but good faith on the part of the editor who merged the articles, due to the history of as well as lively and vigorous discussion about this article, I have restored the article and substituted instead two merger discussion boxes, one on Bisexual erasure and one on Biphobia.

I look forward to discussing and working on this and other subjects with you in the future. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I feel like I've consciously tried to avoid bringing my "personal views" into the discussion. All I've tried to do is figure out whether or not such an inflammatory word should be used in a BLP, in lieu of simply pointing out what his views on the matter are (which I don't agree with, for what it's worth), and letting the reader decide whether these views constitute homophobia. If pressed, I would say they do. But as you've accurately, and eloquently, pointed out, what I think about the matter, doesn't matter. It's only what should be in the article that matters. I fully understand that real people edit this project, and are the subject of the articles in this project. Arguing against inclusion of an inflammatory descriptor does not mean that I do not think that said descriptor is wrong, as you seem to imply. As I said above, if pressed, I would say the descriptor applies.

As for RedSpruce, it's not being called "homophobic" that angers me as much as it is the fact that he won't even retract the statement, nor offer anything resembling a true apology. It has led me to reveal more about my views regarding homosexuality at that talkpage than I have at any point during the discussion, and has put me at some risk in real life, since I'm a teacher in a conservative Southern school district. And yet he refuses to acknowledge any real error in judgement on his part. That is what angers me.Bellwether ^B_C 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Check his responses to your note (including a dummy edit with an edit summary of "boo hoo"). Still think he's the "bigger person"? And how could you make that comment, given the way the discussion has gone thus far? I have not once made this personal. And he's the "bigger person"? Bellwether ^B_C 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I didn't know RS before this discussion. From my perspective, there were no "infights" until he grossly insulted me. And now that you've called him a "better person" than I am, I'd appreciate understanding more fully how you came to that conclusion. Bellwether ^B_C 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I no this well random but was bored so was just snooping around on peoples pages and found yours and started reading =) (lol) dont worry you do meet some prats on this site that want it all their way but just ignore them!!!

just thought that i say a friendly word or 2; CHEER UP Tbharding (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Casio digital watch detainees, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:LGBT clergy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message on my talk page.

The government's database of legislation says that sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 are still in force. The 1999 edition of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice says that they were still in force then, and devotes several pages to them. Creating a defence (even a very broad one) to a crime is not the same thing as abolishing it. You are offering no sources for what you are saying. As far as I can see, there is nothing historical about sections 58 or 59.James500 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message on my talk page.

Could you please tell me what you think happens when an abortion is performed under circumstances that fall outside the defence provided by the 1967 and 1990 Act? As far as I can see, the person who does it will be liable to be prosecuted under section 58 or for child destruction, like this woman here.

I also think that your suggestion that there is something about my edits that indicates that I don't like the 1967 Act is not a fair or reasonable inference.James500 (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message.

I did not make it hard to find information on the Abortion Act 1967. I put section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 at the top of the section on England and Wales. It formed the entire section on Scotland.

Is there any point in me repeating that sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act are not "past Acts" as you suggest, they have not been repealed, they have only been amended, which is not the same thing?James500 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've posted a reply on my own talk page. Its a little heated, so in the spirit of civility, I'd like to say hello and hope we can talk in the right way together. And I'm Scottish as well!Zafio (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand the principle of "good faith". You write that "you haven't explained why it matters so much to you to edit the Secularism section of the article now instead of in two months". Well, the Secularism section point is moot... this has become something of a war which I don't think is fun for either of us. I reverted one whole section, then when challenged by you, thought it was appropriate to edit it slightly (explaining why in the talk), adding the relevant information of what the controversial article was about. You have made no claims that my edit was unreliable or POV, just in some vague way "unnecessary". I thought your description of the article as anti-Islam was inflammatory, because that can't be objectively true. Imagine, for example, trying to prove that an article was anti-semitic by content analysis. And my last edit added some material and *retained* the reference to the fact the article was "critical of Islam" (Felix's words, not mine). Its not that I've insisted that none of Felix's edit be retained, and the whole thing being reverted. You could even call my edit a "compromise". I'm not as ignorant of Wikipedia rules as you suppose, if I were inclined to go any further with this I'd support my views with reference to the Wiki rules.

But I'd rather not fight over this. Ultimately, I'd say this edit doesn't "matter" that much to me, although I did find the wording a little weaselly, if I'm being honest. But lets not get into that. I'm not pleased by how heated this thing has become. I'm willing to drop it.

But as for why I'm editing the article in *general* now, I did hint in one of my replies at my previous experience editing this page. There were some extremely tenacious editors who were determined to put in not just anti-Hari material, but defamatory material and repeated violations of BLP, for which more than one editor has been blocked. That is a matter of recorded fact, which you'll discover if you look at the archive. Indeed, the page is currently semi-protected because of vandalism and repeated violations of BLP. That is reason enough to want to be involved in editing the page, no? I think so. Thats the only reason it "matters" to me, and I think "good faith" consists of accepting the fact that it matters to the other editor, for whatever reason. I've not asked why it matters to you. And that makes two of us who feels "good faith" hasn't been shown this evening. And ultimately, being advised not to edit a page by another editor I don't think is polite, however friendly your motives. Zafio (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

What I respond to very clearly in your last remarks is the idea that you're involved in this page because you're "fascinated" by the plagiarism story. I am too, just as I was fascinated with the war between David R and other editors on this page. It was incredible theatre. So we're both involved partly because of fascination. Thats fine. That fascination maybe helps to explain why I've had more edits here than anywhere else. I ask you to read the archives not merely for self-exculpation, but because they are *extraordinary* reading. Another reason I got involved was because I felt this was a perfect opportunity to find out what Wikipedia was all about. Believe me, I learnt about WP:V and WP:BLP pretty fast. I've only tinkered with other pages, its true. But they're not as interesting to edit when this one kicks off. And also I thought what was going on was very unfair.

You write: "In general, however, I'd noticed that there were two serious problems with the Hari page: - one was that it was packed full of rather laudatory descriptions of articles, which made it very long and made it sound like Hari is a bigger-name journalist than he is: - and second, that it was full of clashes Hari had had with people, that were neither notable nor properly sourced." In fact, if you look at the archive page, I have challenged David R on both those points - I memorably describe Hari as a "mid-ranking journalist". Ironically, he'd become a bigger name since then, until the plagiarism accusations. Still, I thought some of the clashes he'd had were notable at the time, and others weren't, but years later they clearly aren't. Frankly, thats why I supported your proposed restructuring on the talk page: to get rid of all that old news. But if you look at the archives, there were always two sides to this argument, and the other side made David R look like the face of balanced sweet reason. Work out who that is, and you might have some clue as to why I've tried to edit the way I have tonight. That said, I stick by my edit in the terms of WP:V: verifiability and notability. Its in good faith, and I think its sound.

I think we got caught up in a WP:V game of chicken, but mutual suspicion will do that. Peace, and I'm in Scotland if you're close to talk about it over a drink. Although I'd understand if you'd rather do anything, anything else. Zafio (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and if you look closely at my history, you'll notice that I was involved with the page, but never involved in edit wars. I was very much more a conciliator on those occasions. I much prefer it, if I'm honest. On the evidence of tonight, wars are exhausting. Zafio (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

One last thing: thanks for not reverting that edit, its magnanimous given the argle-bargle. Its something I'll leave for the forseeable future. I may get involved in the page if anything outright barabarous happens, but we'll see. Zafio (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've slept on last nights to-and-fro. I'm going to recuse myself from editing this page for a while, mostly because getting a harmless NPOV edit in the encyclopedia was so exhausting. That said, your concerns are not so much about that edit itself (you seem to think the current edit is "better" than my previous ones, though I don't assume that means you approve), but about my edit history and my possible identity. I'm not David R, and I think it would take a particularly jaundiced eye to look at what I've said in the talk history of the Hari page to think so. But, as we've seen, a jaundiced eye has appeared (not yours, by the way). I'm disappointed that I have to stop editing because of unfounded tittle-tattle. I hope you read what I've written in the archive and come to the conclusion that I'm not David R. If not, there's nothing I can do, and nothing further I will say about it here. Its a waste of my time to carry on. But we do live in the same city, it looks like, so I'd be happy to meet privately to clarify my position here. No great shakes if not. Its no my war anymore. Zafio (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note-I can't say that I'm terribly impressed by the 'circumstantial evidence' that user:zafio isn't david r, I certainly regarded him as one of dave r's sock/meatpuppets back when he started posting in 2007. The preference for hagiographic, tediously long explanations of bits of Hari's writing, and wholesale reverts would be typical of dave r. His contribution history [1] would support the notion that he is too, and I note that his recent editing has started to attract attention in the blogosphere, for what that's worth.FelixFelix ^talk 10:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (Link added by me for reference 09:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC))Reply

"I note that his recent editing has started to attract attention in the blogosphere, for what that's worth." Its worth absolutely nothing at all. I'm not going to respond to any of your insinuations, or claims about my editing, because your history proves you are fundamentally unreasonable. Don't feed the troll. Zafio (talk)

Looks like I forgot my tildes or something. Thats good, my IP address is now freely available for the tireless blogosphere to do with what they will. Zafio (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yonmei, its astounding you accuse me of not showing good faith when you have been suggesting all along that I am a possible or likely sockpuppet. Moreover, I don't see you asking Felix-Felix on his talk page not to attack other users on your page. Yet he outright suggested I was a sockpuppet for David R. Are any of these good faith positions? I'm being shown none whatsoever as an editor. You have all along simply assumed that I'm dishonest, and have behaved accordingly. But that doesn't follow at all, because I am who I claim to be. Zafio (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of the circumstantial evidence I provided, Yonmei? Do you think it tends to speak in my favour *at all*? But as you say in one of your replies, no amount or kind of circumstantial evidence will persuade some people that I am not a sock-puppet. But if thats true, this by any definition cannot be "reasonable suspicion", because reasonable suspicion is capable of at least weighing countervailing evidence. Whether that be from an archived talk page, or from other source. I'm not saying thats your position, but you haven't given me any good reason yet to think that you'll consider any evidence in my favour. What you're presenting to me is a "reasonable suspicion" from which I can't reasonably defend myself. Except by silence. Thats neither "friendly" nor fair. Please can you consider the fact that these suspicions about my identity are serious, and ones that I have every right to feel aggrieved about. Because they simply aren't true. And I have offered any number of defenses of my position: about why I began editing the page, about why I've started editing it now, about my contribution history providing evidence of actually *challenging* David R's edits. I've even offered to meet you, if that would convince you. And you haven't addressed a single one of these points. You've raised serious doubts about my honesty as an editor here (the other editor you allude to has gone further and made outright accusations, but I myself have a "reasonable suspicion" that his view is not neutral). These may not be "accusations", but in fact I never misread what you said as outright accusations. Its enough that you've cast in serious doubt my motives and identity for me to want to defend my position. Isn't that reasonable?

As I've said, I'm holding off on editing this page for the time being. However, please desist from airing your "reasonable suspicions" here or anywhere else. Since you have raised our suspicions in an online blog forum, your claim to offer friendly advise lacks credibility.Zafio (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, Yonmei, thats useful. I think you can understand why I want to protect my privacy a little more carefully than I did yesterday. The reason I deleted the reply to Felix was because of my IP address, which I honestly left by mistake. But actually I don't think having my IP address out there matters. However, would you object if those other two paragraphs were removed entirely? It would be easy for another editor see that they're edited and find the root edit, so in actual fact its not that substantial a protection of my privacy. I hope you think thats reasonable. Zafio (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I should mention that I've contacted an admin about whats happened on this page and elsewhere, regarding suspicions that I am a sockpuppet. The reason why the "blogosphere" started to make such a suggestion was the fact that I removed a citation that has already been censured by Wiki admins for violating WP:BLP. Not that there's any reason you should know it, but Hari's page has a long history of BLP violation, vandalism, and legal issues. My edit in this regard (it was obviously a different one from the one we were disputing) was a responsible one. I haven't tried to remove any information on the current plagiarism scandal, or the Dave R allegations, because these are reliable and notable issues (when I suggested that the section be trimmed, I immediately consented to your suggestion that this needed to wait). I agree with you that if "Dave R" isn't Hari, he should come forward and resolve the situation, because I think whats become clear in the last week is that there's a real case to answer. But its equally fishy that my responsible edits, which are timely given clear attempts to violate WP: BLP (the page is semi-protected as you know), are being regarded as potential sockpuppet edits.

I want to make it clear that whatever our differences, I don't and have never associated you with any of this considerably murky territory. I did have quite a whinge to the admin about the deadlock we had on the talk page (and I think I had some grounds), but I think I didn't make it sufficiently clear to him that you clearly have nothing to do with the history of this page. I will now do so. I'd like to take the time now to directly apologize to you if my language has been less than sanguine at times. I would hope you might also reflect that your own behaviour here may have been over-zealous. Zafio (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your co-operation tonight. Its appreciated given the circumstances of the last couple of days. Zafio (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

As promised, I've written to the admin Charles Matthews, clarifying where I think you're coming from, and more importantly where you're not coming from. He has also posted, quite independently of my enquiry to him, about "Dave R" and his relationship to the Hari page. It offers a different perspective on Dave R and the past and present of Hari's page than you may have seen elsewhere. Please be careful about implicating me or anyone else in this affair, even if you believe your suspicions may be justified. http://www.mailrepository.com/wikien-l.lists.wikimedia.org/msg/3963278/. Zafio (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yonmei, you have implicated my user account, in my view recklessly and based on surmise, with a very serious public affair. My repeated invitations to meet in person were meant only half seriously. But if it would have convinced of my integrity, and to stop you airing your unfounded suspicions about my account, I'd have been willing to do so. I don't know where you get the idea that I aspire to any social interaction with you.

As I have explained to you several times, I have legitimate *enyclopedic* reasons for editing Johann Hari's web-page. These edits I've made with full reference to Wiki rules, so I'm not sure why you repeatedly imply that I'm ignorant of them and don't understand basic Wikipedia principles. But the issue is far more serious than my qualities as a Wikipedia editor. You have shown no understanding that a man's career might be at stake, and that unproven accusations of sockpuppetry in the case of Hari may have very serious implications. You have also shown no understanding that airing your paper-thin surmises about my user account may have negative consequences for myself. I suggest you read carefully Wikipedia admin Charles Matthews recent post on the David Rose affair, which I have already posted on your page: http://www.mailrepository.com/wikien-l.lists.wikimedia.org/msg/3963278/. I hope you read this carefully, because I'm beginning to question if you really grasp the potential serious consequences of your actions as regards me this weekend.

Its a pity, because I had tried to strike a conciliatory note on your talk page, and your cooperation as regards my privacy seemed like a step forward. However, your failure to remove one suggested edit makes me question if this was in good faith. If you repeat your unfounded surmises about me here or anywhere else in the web, I will inform the admins. And in the meantime, please don't contact me in any way.Zafio (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Between 15 and 17 July 2011 I had a long conversation with Zafio over various issues relating to the Johann Hari page. Zafio then attempted to delete material from my Talk page, and has now blanked the entire conversation from their own Talk page. For my own reference I am linking to the last full version of the Zafio Talk page.

I deleted that material from your Talk Page because of legitimate fears about WP:OUTING and of potential compromises to my privacy. You, I think fairly, responded that this was in violation of WP:TALK but compromised by removing specific edits. However, you did not remove a further edit that mentioned the fact that I asked you to remove them, thus alerting any motivated reader to the fact that they might find personal information in your User talk history. As for my own talk page, I am entitled to remove any comments I want from my own talk page. I am supported in this by Wikipedia:User pages, which states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages".

I deleted material from my Talk Page because you have repeatedly (a) raised utterly unfounded suspicions that I am a sockpuppet, based merely on your own surmise and (b) discouraged me from editing an article on which we have an editorial dispute. None of this is good practice, and you have also implicated my user account in sockpuppet allegations on an external site. These allegations as you know are the subject of current media scrutiny. I take the fact that you implicate me in these allegations as a severe breach of good faith, and as a personal attack. You have also failed to respond to my attempts at conciliation. I do not have to tolerate these repeated personal attacks and attempts at dissuading me from editing Wikipedia.

Therefore, I have to insist that (a) you remove the above link to my talk page, for your or anyone else's reference (b) you remove any material you have posted here or on any other user's talk page that makes any speculation about details of my personal identity, whether or not these speculations are founded in fact (c) you desist from making any further allusions to these unfounded sockpuppet allegations or on any other matter relating to this account (unless in the case of further legitimate *editorial* dispute).

This must stop, and I will make further representations to the admins. Zafio (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Admin Charles Matthews has posted this, if you haven't seen it already: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felix-felix&diff=440077671&oldid=439813414.Zafio (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for agreeing to cease contact with me. According to your previously-expressed wish, I'm not posting this message on your Talk page, but I hope that you see this message and understand that I am grateful both to you for agreeing to cease user-page interaction with me and to the admin you contacted for proposing it. Yonmei (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Failure to use colons to indent; failure to use tildes to sign comments - these traits are in common, too almost-instinct 20:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I left a note on User talk:Felix-felix, concerning implications of policy when it comes to prying into personal matters on this site. Here is the diff. Just to make all this entirely clear to everyone:

• There is no vestige of "free speech" right here on WP - if your contributions to discussions are pitched outside the guidelines, you'll be off the site, and so will anyone else who misses the point.
• "Freelance" discussion of all matters related to identities behind accounts is strongly discouraged. We don't want speculation about who may or may not be a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, have a potential COI, or anything related. Concerns can be brought up via channels: you are not supposed to act as a vigilante in these delicate matters.

These aspects of policy are the result of long experience with editors who have a less constructive approach. Efforts here must be directed to improvement of articles.

I hope that is all very clear. If not, do not hesitate to raise matters with me. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Source for the precise claim you made that Hari said he committed 'plagiarism"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:3rr please note that you have exceeded the 3RR restriction on Johann Hari. Please be aware that yur next revert will, indeed, result in posting to the WP:AN/EW noticeboard. Cheers, and please do not ignore this warning offered in good faith. Collect (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Emended to virgule. Thanks for noting it. And the 3RR does not refer to "since last edit" in case you misread the WP:3RR page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell - Collect (talk) has taken to deleting my comments from their Talk page unanswered, which is of course their right: Someone who knew nothing about Johann Hari found that page via the Sockpuppeting link, and complained about it on the Biographical Articles noticeboard. Collect (talk) then jumped into editing the Johann Hari page in the typical WikipedianAmerican way, without knowing much about the subject but believing that their ignorance didn't matter (judging by the sheer quantity of biographical articles Collect (talk) has "edited", they do this quite a lot). Collect (talk) was unaware that Hari's employers had investigated and it had been directly reported by a valid source that Hari had admitted plagiarism. Once made aware when I posted the link, Collect (talk) couldn't back down (wouldn't respond on the Talk page) and took up edit-warring over the title of the Plagiarism section instead. ...

And the final thing I think: I have edited Wikipedia more since June, when I conceived it necessary to set down in meticulous and well-sourced detail exactly what plagiarism Hari committed, while his sockpuppets were still active on the site, than in all the three years since I formally quit. I did good work, and at least this time I'm not quitting because of the heartbreak of trying to convince Americans to allow material of interest only to non-Americans in their encyclopedia: I'm quitting because I've been reminded by Collect (talk)'s interferance that I am not a Wikipedian. I cared about the facts and I cared about getting the article written in a form that accurately conveyed what had happened. Well, I did that, and now Wikipedians will come in and reformat it according to their format requirements, and informed outsiders are never welcome for that part of the process: it doesn't require respect for the facts so much as respect for the Wikipedia-way.

But Wikipedia is a time-sink, and the net result of putting in a lot of work can be nothing at all because Wikipedians don't like what you did. So as I did three years ago, the best thing is to quit. 23:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't give up Yomnei!!!! People need to keep that page from returning to its terrible previous incarnation!!! SamuelSpade79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.215 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hari's sockpuppets tend to behave in certain ways.

• Pretty much single-purpose accounts, editing in a very limited area of interests. See User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs
• Pro-Hari editing, to the point of being hagiographic.
• Long-winded and verbose
• Remove anti-Hari Private Eye material, claiming PE is a non-reliable source
• Like to mention that libel suits might follow, especially the likelihood of Wikipedia being open to such legal claims [2], as a way of silencing criticism of Hari. This one is especially typical of his socks: "Jess"/User:Thelionforreal was even a legal journalist!
• "Accidentally" forget to log in a few times, thereby making the IP apparent. Can then say "But my IP proves I am in X and Hari is in Y therefore we can't be the same person"
• As David Rose, editing as an IP, Hari switched IPs frequently, and ISPs less frequently. This makes tracking him difficult.
• Often challenge questioners to meet in the flesh, to prove they aren't Hari
• Will argue/agree amongst themselves, to create the semblance of "real" people
• When editing as IP socks, give a name in free text (rather than autosigning), and seem keen for people to know their identity/personal information about them and their location. Given that most IPs edit as IPs precisely because they want to remain "un-named", this is very unusual. In fact, I've only ever seen it in Hari's socks.

Given Hari's obsessive six year history of editing under various guises on Wikipedia, and his control freakery over his own article, it is not surprising he has not been be able to disengage, despite being found out. 86.152.240.151 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{admin help}}

I opened a sockpuppet investigation. User:Collect has left three comments at this page:

• 20:22, 18 September 2011 trout fishing in all likelihood)
• 17:27, 23 September 2011 Collect Comments by other users: lol time
• 17:29, 23 September 2011 Collect David Allen Green says "Inconclusive": lol (appended to end as well - as otherwise it is likely to not be read by anyone at all)

The first comment accuses me of beginning the investigation "just because consensus is not going your way"; the second comment complains that the complainants are too "long-winded and verbose" and points out a comment from the previous day asking for a redraft (which is already being acted on); The last comment is an exact copy of the second comment, cut-and-pasted to a more conspicuous location of the page.

I removed the second two comments, especially as User:Collect had posted them with a "lol" indicating they were not intended as a serious contribution. I added a civil note on User:Collect's Talk page asking the editor to return to the discussion if they had something substantive to contribute.

User:Collect undid my edit without any reply to me either at my Talk page or theirs, with the warning "Undid revision 452059764 by Yonmei (talk)such refactoring of comments on SPI pages is ill-advised."

I don't wish to get barred by 3RR from this Sockpuppet page. I am happy to have input from all editors of the affected page. But I would prefer it to be substantive editing, not mockery of the investigation itself. How can I handle this? Yonmei (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Update: the note I left at Collect's Talk page has been removed with the edit summary "rm non-utile rants". Yonmei (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Update: I'm trying to get Collect to clarify what they thought they were doing with the "lol" comments double-posted, on the project's Talk page. Yonmei (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per our talk page guidelines, there are very few circumstances in which you are allowed to remove or refactor others' comments on discussion pages. If you have an objection to Collect's comments, the best course of action is to object to them. Consider also that if Collect is causing difficulty for you or disrupting the investigation, if action needs to be taken to resolve that it is much easier if the comments are left intact for other people to view. We usually only remove comments that cause serious harm, including comments that reveal the identity of others, target living article subjects or are of similar severity.

As to Collect removing your note at their talk page, that is allowed per WP:BLANKING. Removing a comment from your user talk page is considered to be an acknowledgement of receipt of that message. Only a few kinds of messages (like declined block requests for currently active blocks, ban notices, etc.) need to stay. So there is nothing wrong with that action. -- Atama頭 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the clarification. So if Collect continues to post comments without relevance to investigation, at that point I can ask an admin to intervene?

I had no problem with Collect removing my note at their Talk page: I was just noting that they had, and linking to where I left it. Yonmei (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can, though whether or not action is taken would depend on the nature of the comments and how disruptive they are. In addition, I strongly advise you to start the SPI over again, or maybe just add a concise set of evidence for review. A Checkuser already said that the investigation isn't even going to be considered at this point. I can understand, I work in SPI (as an administrator only, not as a clerk and I'm definitely not a CU) and I wouldn't even consider taking up your case due to (as Collect and others pointed out) the verbosity of the submission. Look at an SPI I filed a couple of days ago here, and my submissions are actually a bit longer than most because I like to be thorough and to try to make my suspicions and evidence clear. This is probably a more "typical" SPI submission. -- Atama頭 00:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, that's extremely useful. I do appreciate your help.Yonmei (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Also in reference to this case, please consider that emailing someone because they contributed to the Johann Hari page/talk page at any time in the past 7 years is perhaps a bit much. Many people you contact from years ago, like myself, may no longer be editing Wikipedia. You are unlikely to garner additional support for your opinion using this method; it is usually best to limit notifications to people who are actively participating in the item you have a concern about. Shell ^babelfish 22:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The sockpuppet editing/disruption of the Johann Hari page took place from 2004 onwards. I know that I have received notifications for discussions taking place about pages I hadn't edited in well over a year or longer. I was uncertain what the time-limit was, and assumed that people no longer interested would simply ignore the message. Yonmei (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have now exceeded WP:3RR on the Hari article.

1. [3] 16:32 - 51 27 Sep (6 edits) (revert)
2. [4] 16:55 (revert)
3. [5] 17:04
4. [6] 17:06 (2 edits)
5. [7] 17:10 (revert number 3)
6. [8] 17:13 - 15 (2 edits) (revert 4)
7. [9] 17:54 (revert number 5)

Please self-revert else this shall be reported at WP:AN/EW. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your advice, I've done so. Yonmei (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yonmei, I saw your edit summaries for The Mountain Is Young that talked about "despair". I think you might be missing the point about the notability tag - I added the tag because I didn't know if the book was notable or not and there weren't any citations saying that it was. If I suspected that the book was definitely not notable, then I would have probably proposed it for deletion instead. You've likely read Wikipedia:Notability, but there's another essay that I rather like that explains the concept of notability well. It can be found at User:Uncle G/On notability. The point is that if you can find multiple, reliable sources which discuss the book, then it is notable. It doesn't depend on what any given editor thinks is notable - it is an objective test. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them below, as I'll be watching this page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ouch! The accusation of being male I accept, but I'm afraid I must take issue with the accusation of being American ;) Seems like you have had a few bad experiences with the notability rule, but don't worry, this case won't add to your woes. The book is perfectly notable, and the sources you provided are more than enough. The step you were missing was to add them to the article as inline citations, and I've done that for you. Who was the famous Indian writer removed a couple of years ago as "non-notable", by the way? There may be something we can do about that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yonmei. I have just added a couple of references to your article about The Mountain is Young as well as mention that the novel was a New York Times Bestseller when first published. That is the sort of fact about a book that an editor is looking for to indicate it is notable, as well as of course scholarly coverage of the book. Just being a published book is not considered Notable, and since you didn't put something in the article that said why the novel was notable in your first draft, it was not unreasonable for Mr. Stradivarius to tag it; as he says, those tags are not meant to be discouraging, they are meant to encourage improvements to articles. Personally, I find the format and wording of tags like the Notability and Cite tags is not at all encouraging and am not surprised that editors find them insulting and discouraging, but I hope you will recognize that most of the wikipedia editors do not see them that way. I believe Mr. S. is being honest when he says that was not his intent: he was using a tool that was ill-designed (by young white men), not trying to oppress (or even delete) your article. I encourage you to compose an article about Sujit Mukherjee; I agree there should be one. It might help if you create articles within your user space so they do not come under such critical scrutiny while still under construction. I also find it's useful to look up a well-developed article about a similar sort of topic/person and copy the format of that article. If you want help with this sort of thing, drop a note on my talk page or email to netmouse (@) netmouse.com. Netmouse (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

And I just copy-edited it for you, Yonmei. Please continue to work on this article.--TEHodson 04:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

As I said to you on the Nine Reasons Women... article, I will be happy to help you or support you in any way I can should you choose to improve your book article or re-write your Aberdeen Pride article. Another female editor very active in LGBT-related articles is Moni3, and she's a good ally to have. She's also a very, very hard worker who is responsible for either writing or bringing up to standard many Featured Articles and Good Articles on many different subjects, as you can see if you check out her work. There are plenty of people here who will work with you and be allies, but those who are worth having as allies are hard workers, not whinging quitters, so you'll have to pull yourself together and do the work, stop edit-warring, and above all, stop blaming others for things not going your way.--TEHodson 01:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Edinburgh LGBT Centre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cnbrb (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Mauritanian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply