User talk:Friend of the Facts

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Friend of the Facts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Orangemarlin

Again, welcome! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

Excellent. However, watch for the war that follows. BTW, you have the most unusual set of edits I've ever seen. Interesting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using google to look for spelling mistakes.

Don't forget to use ~~~~ (four tilde's) to sign whenever you post on a talk page (including your own). It tells us who is talking, and time stamps it. Do not sign when you're editing the article space, of course. Spelling errors are everywhere. Also, remember to review WP:ENGVAR. There are only a few places where we change from one version of English to another. Maybe if an article is 90% American English, and you find 2 or 3 words in British English, I might change there. But if it's an article about a British subject (say the Queen or London), it should always be British English. I am always reverting people who think "rationalise" is misspelled. I think there are long edit wars on that! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate this. Friend of the Facts (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your efforts to fix spelling mistakes in articles, and to encourage you to keep going, I hereby award you this Barnstar. YSSYguy (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are you finding all of these spelling errors? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do a Google search like this:

"incorrectly spelt word" site:en.wikipedia.org

Then I go through the results. A lot of what comes back is talk pages but I ignore them and only focus on finding articles to fix. Friend of the Facts (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Using Google's exclude feature seems to help filter out talk and other namespaces: "tpyo" site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ -Talk -User -Template -Category Zackexley (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. But wouln't that also exclude articles that have the word "user" or "talk" in them somewhere but aren't talk pages or user pages? Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Red Herrings !

This edit [1] and supporting sources are brilliant. You are the definition of WP:BOLD. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were found by NW who also made the first edit to the definition. I only removed the "death" bit because it didnt match what the sources NW added were saying. I didn't notice the other source that was left at the end so maybe I acted a little too fast. But no harm done because it's easy to put the page back to the old way and keep the discussion going. Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only go by the data. Your edit seems the best fit curve. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am open to "death" being there if that's how references define it commonly but that doesn't seem to be the case from NW's research. Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I liked you. Death doesn't belong there, since science really has a standard definition for life. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued both sides and I'm not seeing/finding/hearing anything that supports "death". Odd. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like a lot of science (evolution, global warming, etc), political debate makes it appear there is a scientific debate. The mass of cells that make up a fetus are "living", only in a strictly biochemical sense, in that they can process energy, manufacture proteins, etc. But it's not "alive" like a fully functional being. So, as an organism, it cannot and does not die, because it was never alive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the male angler fish. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I blame fluoridated water. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Alan Seabaugh. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I thought edit summaries were only needed for doing stuff you have to explain not straightforward things like fixing spelling. I'll try to use edit summaries in the future then. Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are. A nice middle ground (that satisfies no one by definition) is to mark any edit not worthy of an edit summary as minor. NW (Talk) 20:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "they are" you mean edit descriptions are needed for even small things like spelling fixes right? Thanks. Friend of the Facts (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I meant the opposite. In my opinion, edit summaries are only necessary for anything that wouldn't be immediately obvious from looking at the diff, in my view anyway. Other editors use them more frequently than that. NW (Talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion lead sentence, redux #100

Thoughts? NW (Talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the sentence into two parts was a good way to stick to how most references define abortion in terms of viability but also cover the exception of abortion at a later stage. But I think this probably should have been discussed before it was put into action. I definitely support it though and I hope it's something people can agree on. Friend of the Facts (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC) The problems are: the technical term for the intentionally induced termination of a viable fetus is "abortion", and "before birth" is unclear and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.144 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to a currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice but I'm confused by this. Is this about the abortion article? Is it already going on or has it not started yet? Do I have to take part? I don't mind giving my thoughts on stuff that comes up at the abortion page but this looks pretty involved and I don't know if I want to take part. Friend of the Facts (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is about editor conduct and behavior issues around the article (as well as on the talk page). The case is in the evidence stage (which means that people are mostly still trying to provide statements. You do not have to take part, but you're always welcome to add your thoughts and views. If you can provide evidence to support your statement, it would be even better. Being named as a party doesn't automatically mean that something will happen to you; it just means that you were one of the editors who the arbitrators consider to have significant involvement in the buildup to the case. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion article titles notification

Hey Friend of the Facts. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]