User talk:Brobbins

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Brobbins! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand source

Not only are you a new face at the abortion article, but you are new to Wikipedia (your contribution list dating back only to May 2, 2006), so I am going to attribute our misunderstanding to this unfamiliarity. Abortion is tough terrority to navigate, as one must oblige the input of left, right, and everything in between, while also upholding quality and accuracy. The general tendency is toward exclusion, before inclusion, with exhaustive research and approval being required before many edits. Although abortion is a cut-and-dry medical procedure for some, for many it is one of the great moral dilemmas of the age, and, thus, even small sections of the article are the product extensive discussion (see the recent "Intro" drafting on Talk, which lasted two months, and spanned 3 archives). This glacial, bureaucratic process is the only manner by which to ensure that the balance does not tip in favour of either side. -Severa (!!!) 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and that's why I first brought up the issue in the talk forum, and there were no major objections so I went ahead. In retrospect, I shouldn't have added the Coleman, Reardon, & Strahan article until I'd brought it up for discussion. But yes, chalk it up to being a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brobbins (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2006

Yup, it takes a while to get used to the editing process, and there's sure to be a few mistakes made at first. But, don't worry, everything can be undone or revised, and every edit is archived. Also, in the future, please remember to sign your name with four tildes at the end of your post (~~~~). Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 05:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't let them bully you away from making bold edits that rely on verifiable, peer reviewed studies. There are a number of editors on the abortion and mental health article who insist on excluding even the best referenced material and have even openly discussed purging of the kinds of studies you provide since it undermines their POV.--Strider12 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the three revert rule?

WP:3RR

Just a friendly reminder.LCP 23:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)