Talk:Life Dynamics Inc.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article deletion

I notice that the Life Dynamics Inc. article was sumarily deleted without even a "quick delete" notice.

Here are links on Life Dynamics:[1][2][3][4]

Life Dynamics is in the Yahoo Directory of Pro-Life organizations.[5]

Planned Parenthood Federation of America lists Life Dynamics[6] as one of "15 Anti-Choice Organizations" they consider a threat.[7]

They're significant enough for Planned Parenthood to take notice, but somehow beneath the notice of Wikipedia?ChristinaDunigan 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not apply (August 19)

I removed the {{db-g4}} tag from this article. This refers to speedy delete criteria G4, which says: (underline mine)

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply; when no criterion applies, the recreated page may not be speedied, but may be submitted to Articles for deletion or the appropriate XfD process.

This article has only been deleted under speedy, so G4 does not apply in this situation. This is not a club, a band, or a person, so A7 does not apply.

Nomination for deletion should be taken through the standard WP:AFD process. — ERcheck (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure for adding more information

I changed the structure of the page to make it easier to add information about LDI's various projects.

I'd originally done this in the sandbox, but that gets nuked every 12 hours and it just didn't seem like a helpful idea to me. My work gets nuked often enough by people who simply don't like it. I don't need the added pressure of a robot nuking the work automatically. I also couldn't figure out if it just nuked twice a day at certain times regardless of what had been done, or if it nuked sandbox pages if they'd not been tinkered with in the past 12 hours, or if it would allow them to stand if you'd been working on them within the past 12 hours.

Back to LDI. This is a group that has a lot of irons in the fire, with lots of supporters and detractors, and it'll be a major project just to do justice to one LDI activity. Let's work together on this rather than just nuke what we don't like! I'm going to do my best to gather information for a balanced piece but I can't do that if people keep just nuking major chunks. If you think a section is too positive, add information about criticism. If you think a section is too critical, add information about support. Okay?

I'm going to start by going through Life Dynamics' own web site and adding what they have to say about their own projects. I will then do a web search and find what other people and organizations have to say and add that. So please be patient while this is in progress! Please add additional information rather than just going through and nuking things!

If we all work together we can flesh this out into a balanced article.ChristinaDunigan 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in the category for unsourced statements?

Everything seems to be pretty thoroughly cited.ChristinaDunigan 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because many editors on Wikipedia are very liberal and pro-death and will do anything they can to cause problems for this article. Dwain 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.112.84.234 (talk) [reply]

{{Fact}} tags are commonly placed after unsourced information in articles throughout Wikipedia. Using a fact tag on an article automatically places that article in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. This is designed to help users willing to contribute research easily find articles to improve. If you see a fact tag at the end of sentence - it'll appear like ^{[citation needed]} — you might consider adding a source, or else removing the unsourced information until one is found. -Severa (!!!) 10:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced quote

I am removing the following text from this article. As a quote it must be cited, but it has been marked as needing a citation since it was added to this article over a year ago.

This focus on "spies", "sting operations", and infiltrators has led Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers to comment, "They just really get off on all this cloak-and-dagger stuff". ^{[citation needed]}

SlackerMom 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edits

Expand why the organisation gathers data as described. What use do they make of this data?
Consider removing the Bottom Feeder Joke - it may affect neutrality - and the point is better made by the pro-choice reaction quoted later.

--Haruth (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Life Dynamics Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life Dynamics Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521182022/http://www.theinterim.com/2005/apr/14qanda.html to http://www.theinterim.com/2005/apr/14qanda.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]