User talk:James xeno/old talk pages/01 (beginning -to- 01/04/2008)

Welcome!

Hello, James xeno/old talk pages/01 (beginning -to- 01/04/2008), and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If 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. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-circumcised

[edit]

Hi — I have reverted your recent edits to Circumcision, which replaced the word "uncircumcised" with "non-circumcised". The evidence I can find clearly suggests that the established word in Modern English is "uncircumcised". Please visit the article's talk page if you wish to discuss this further. —ptk✰fgs 05:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have reverted once again to the revision using "non-circumcised", with the edit summary "(Uncircumcised to Non-circumcised (*see discussion page.))". I have searched the current talk page and all 12 archives and there is no discussion of this, except for my recent post describing the evidence that suggests that "uncircumcised" is overwhelmingly the accepted terminology in modern english. Would you mind making a post on the talk page to clarify where there is evidence showing substantial usage of "non-circumcised" in modern english? —ptk✰fgs 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much appreciate it if you would make some sort of post to the talk page. The edit summary "(Uncircumcised = biased/POV)" merely makes an unsupported assertion. The use of "uncircumcised" is 60 times more prevalent than "non-circumcised" in terms of Google hits. The Oxford English Dictionary lists "uncircumcised" in use since 1387 — during the life of Chaucer. The OED does not list non-circumcised at all. —ptk✰fgs 07:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While i disagree with this users arbitrary changing of the term and not posting the talk page - the mere fact that the EOD has a word doesn't mean the word lacks an inherent linguistic bias - I would be open to debate on the terms as I can see arguments both for and against the assertion "uncircumcised is a biased term" (the term implies that "circumcised" is normal via linguistic mechanism) Lordkazan 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan B. Anthony

[edit]

James- I believed we had reached a compromise on the 'abortion section' of the Anthony article. I would like you to specifically address what you consider to be POV in the following paragraph, and get back to me. Everything mentioned is absolute fact, and mentioned to put the situation in the context of the 19th cent.

Anthony occasionally wrote about abortion, which she opposed, for she saw it as another instance of a societal "double standard" imposed upon women. In the 19th century there were none of the standard contraceptive options available to women today, such as birth-control, and abortion was a life-threatening and unsanitary procedure, due to the fact that antibiotics had not yet been invented. "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." (The Revolution, IV, No. 1 (July 8, 1869).--Jackbirdsong 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Liberation Front

[edit]

Hi, just so you know. I have reverted your addition of 'terrorist organisation' to the Animal Liberation Front article as it is POV as it is not sourced to anyone and not attributed to anyone who claims this. We can only claim that 'X organisation has listed them as a terrorist organisation', like the FBI has done and we already have details of in the article. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop re-adding that line. Go and discuss it on the talk page.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PETA

[edit]

Hello, please be advised that adding a {POV} tag to the article without adding any new explanation will only result in getting the tag reverted. The usual way to go about this is to bring your concerns to the talk page and try to reach consensus. Please also be advised that it has long since been decided to weave the criticism of PETA into the article, since it avoids making a particular section a troll magnet, and it makes for a better flow of the article (since a good many of PETA's moves have been controversial, a criticism section would have separated many of their actions and campaigns from their respective criticism).--Ramdrake 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more on Susan B Anthony

[edit]

Hi James xeno -- Thanks for your recent edits on the SBA article. I agree with you that the paragraph should lead with the line on abortion, because that is, after all the topic. But I reverted your latest revision because it's under discussion at the talk page, and rather than engaging in back-and-forth, we should just try to reach a consensus on the matter at the talk page. Could you weigh in on the version I proposed? It's fairly similar to the latest version you did on the page. I think you'll like the fact that it leads with SBA's position on abortion, and also that it eliminates a lot of the post-hoc justifications. Hopefully, it just states clearly and accurately what her position was, with one relatively brief point to try to remind all the folks on the various sides of abortion debates that we're talking about a very different political context. (I think that statement is useful to discourage edit warring from people coming in trying to do some historical revisionism.) I think the main thing we will have to work out will be the length of the quote, so if we could talk about that rather than just going back and forth .... --lquilter 18:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noted your recent edit -- again on abortion. I will not immediately revert this one (as I did with Elizabeth Cady Standton), but please take your issues to the talk page before making such a significant edit. This issue is always contentious in Wikipedia -- and my personal opinions aside, judging 19th century activists by modern standards on this and related issues is always a mistake. Best wishes. WBardwin 07:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add one more comment here on your edits, please discuss your changes in talk, and stop pushing your POV at the SBA article. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My POV? rofl... Anyways, how is posting her full quote, my POV?! James xeno

I did read your profile!

[edit]

Found it by searching people who play Dragon Quest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icecypher (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

[edit]

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
Join our mailing list
Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

[edit]

Hi! It looks like you're the editor who removed the information that ECS had a position on abortion. I'm not sure why you removed it. An earlier editor included a quote from ECS to Julia Ward Howe indicating that she had a very clear position on abortion. While I don't think it's good to include a quote or even a paraphrase of a quote indicating what her position was, without including a formal citation, I think it's fine to say that she simply had a position. Is there some particular reason why you are reluctant to do this? Jancarhart 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Oh yeah, I took that out only as a temp move and was going to reword (context) it as soon as I had the chance. It seemed to almost make it sound like she had a pro position on abortion in her time. But I've been having some computer problems and haven't had a lot of time over the last few weeks, so I wasn't able to fix it yet. Sorry about that. I do agree with you that there needs to be something in the page, indicating that she had a strong position on abortion though. James xeno 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My Goddess!

[edit]

A goddess descends to your talk page

Hi, I noticed your username appears on this category and would like to invite you to take part in a general improvement drive on all articles relevant to Oh My Goddess! including character articles, episode articles and others. -- Cat ^chi? 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

[edit]

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 13:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]