User talk:Severa/archive5

Vandalism

Do not accuse me of vandalism because you do not like the facts that I post and because I try to keep things balanced by applying the same standards to all points of view. It's just not nice. 69.244.79.193 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where I've accused you of vandalism, but, if you refrained from vandalising articles and repeatedly removing policy notices from your page ([1], [2], [3]) perhaps you wouldn't be accused of it. -Severa (!!!) 19:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Severus Snape

I was well aware of the comment in the infobox, thanks. I had left my say on the talk page, as noted in my edit summary, though I admit changing it without any further discussion (just my input) was wrong. I'd advise you to join in the discussion, though, if you feel that the comment is justified. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sidewalk counseling

I saw that you created Sidewalk counseling. Good job with that. I'm not sure if that article will ever need to be expand any further, and so I'd propose possibly merging it with Pro-life activism. I'm all for bigger, extensive articles than, a dozen smaller articles, so that's my bias. If you disagree I won't press it any further, but just wanted to see what you thought about a merger. Thanks for the good work.--Andrew c 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

abortion in cat:causes of death

You've probably already noticed Talk:Abortion#Category:Causes_of_death.3F on your watchlist. If Rossnixon adds the category again, it'd be helpful to dialogue rather than continue reverting. Thanks!--Kchase T 10:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I read his talk page. Please excuse my naivete.--Kchase T 10:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I read this. I didn't think it'd been explained to him. Thanks for your quick argument at Talk:Abortion. It is better than mine.--Kchase T 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Severa, I agree that it doesn't belong in that cat, but please slow down with the reversions and remember 3RR. If Rossnixon doesn't participate in discussion on the talk page, we can ask for admin intervention.--Kchase T 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy I apply to such edits is IAR. Protecting the quality of an article against edits that degrade that quality, and are widely objected to, is more important than 3RR. These edit have been objected to by myself on Talk, you on Talk, and Luna Santin in Revision as of 10:10, 16 December 2006. -Severa (!!!) 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you shoot me an email?--Kchase T 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. I've given up on keeping discussion threaded. All I wanted to tell you is that the 3rr warning is procedural, an attempt at treating everyone equally in that regard. I know you've done a ton of great and fair work on the abortion article and agree that the cat is hard POV pushing. Anyway, I've long since taken sides, so I can't block anybody now.--Kchase T 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

the box in abortion artice yousaf465

the first box on the top right Yousaf465

the top box in article the eding reads likes following:

this History of abortion

This box: view • talk • edit

Yousaf465

Welcome back...

... to Depo Provera, mifepristone, and emergency contraception. Glad to see you weren't permanently bullied away, and glad to have your input. MastCell 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cindery

Looks like s/he has her block and you have documented her previous behaviour quite nicely. I guess you should leave it now because no further action will be taken unless s/he misbehaves after the block expires or uses socks again. --Spartaz 13:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I just think we should let it go now. While s/he is blocked she can't defend herself. I'm sure this won't be the only time she features on AN/I. :) --Spartaz 13:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reproductive rights

I'll take another look at the abortion page, but the situation is a little discouraging. Would you mind taking a look at the most recent edits to reproductive rights? Thanks, and keep up the good work.--Andrew c 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Severa, hi.

I'm sorry, I've been terrible about keeping up with Wikiproject Abortion. I think I've been neglecting those articles ever since the whole Alienus debacle. I was pretty burned out on the whole thing, and needed to spend a few months completing move requests and whatnot.

I noticed that Abortion had achieved GA status; congratulations on that. Looking through the assessment categories... I see that over half are unassessed. Is that a good place for me to pitch in now, do you think? It seems that if they're all (or mostly) assessed, then we can make more informed decisions about where to focus our attention, as far as expanding stubs and pushing for more GAs and FAs.

I'll also have a look at Talk:Abortion. I imagine we'll never have everyone there happy, but I'll jump back in and see if I can help at all. I'll try not to be distracted by the first sentence.

Thanks for tugging on my sleeve again. I needed to walk away for a while, but it's time I get back to work on this project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just been assessing a few articles, and before I do more I'd like to check in with you that I'm doing it right. I haven't done much WikiProject work, so I'm just trying to extrapolate from the articles I see that are already rated. I just assessed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 articles, and I'd like to hold off doing more until I get a reality check. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left Badbilltucker a note, asking for pointers on assessments, and I've assessed a few more articles, just shooting from the hip. It seems to me that the "stub" class are the easiest to identify, and that we have quite a lot of articles that are somewhere in the "Start"/"B" range. Once we pick out which ones are "B"s, we can pick a handful of those to push towards Good Article certification. I agree that an importance rating would be helpful, but I'm not sure I know what criteria we would apply. Maybe articles with more incoming links are more important to work on?

I really didn't realize just how much content is included in our small WikiProject. Looking through all of those unassessed articles is almost overwhelming. I think quite a few are in striking range of Good Article; do you get that same impression? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Abortion

First of all, you deleted what I wrote and said it wasn't a discussion forum, I put it there because the article is WAY to far anti-life, it does not matter what people say, it is wrong, and the article needs to relect this, plus just to let you know this is not my opinion, I must believe it, I am Catholic and if I were to take a neurtal stand for any reason on abortion I would be threatened with excommunication, this is NOT my opionion. Are you pro-life or anti-life pro-"chioce" it should not be called choice because if a girls parents threaten to disown her if she doesn't get on this is NOT her choice. Quaker24 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

You've earned this. Well done. :-)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless Wikipedian diligence as a contributor and defender of neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic information. Random Passer-by 20:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Prenatal Development

Severa, the "Fetal Development" article currently covers development of both the embryo and fetus, and the "Embryology" article is virtually empty. I am thinking about starting a new page titled "Prenatal Development", copying everything from "Fetal Development" into "Prenatal Development", and making "Fetal Development" into a redirect. I think this is a fairly uncontroversial change, but I wanted to check with you first, for obvious reasons. What do you think?Ferrylodge 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll just go ahead and do it.Ferrylodge 23:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not always immediately available on Wikipedia and it does take a while to write a reply. Patience would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have broached the issue at the discussion page for Fetal Development as you suggested at my talk page. BTW, your page says you're on vacation, so don't let me interrupt your vacationing. By the time you get back, I'll have Wikipedia in good shape.  :-) Ferrylodge 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello - I mentioned your name here - just wanted to let you know. If that's not OK with you, let me know and I'll redact it. Just a courtesy notice. Take care. MastCell 22:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the kind words and wise advice. Definitely not my proudest moment on Wikipedia, but such is life. MastCell 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And thanks again!

Thank you for your conscientiousness regarding your submission of Roe vs. Wade to FAR. you are perhaps the only user in eons who has actually notified concerned parties to the submission, as suggested in the submission instructions. I sometimes have to message more than a dozen people and groups in the morning, when several are listed in the night while I sleep. You saved me a lot of work, and it's appreciated. Jeffpw 10:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sandy is probable the most obsessively detail oriented Wikipedia user I have ever encountered. No matter what edit you make, she will invariably think of 25 different ways it could be improved...and implement them all. Jeffpw 10:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, Severa and Jeff: I still have a lot of catching up to do, and was just plowing through yesterday. I should have left you a note yesterday, but ran out of steam. The message at {{subst:FARMessage|Article name}} was worked out on the WP:FAR talk page after several run-ins with editors on FARs who stated that our instructions weren't clear enough (hence, that the process wasn't just). It seems that some editors go directly to the FAR page of the article in question, without ever reading the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. So, giving the complete instructions we've worked out is intended to avoid that criticism/confusion. Putting a notice out helps get the ball rolling, and I appreciate that you did that: I just had to go back and give the subst'd message, which is really easy to do. Thanks for the help in getting the ball rolling! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Late abortion

I totally agree with the revertion of the self-referencing personal-opinion, and with the full list of policies/guidelines you linked to in the edit summary. Their own viewpoint of seeking promote status of fetus after 6 or 8 weeks of gestation seems apparent from self-linked website (nothing wrong with that, notwithstanding that I would beg to difer, but should not be carried over when trying to particpate here in WP - NPOV Cite Verify and RS etc). Care to comment on the discussion already had at Stillbirth, as again needs input from other editors rather than just 2 individuals debating. Yours David Ruben ^Talk 13:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on the reversion, here. I am hoping for some further clarification. Thanks.Ferrylodge 14:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, thanks for the note. I've commented at Talk:Late-term abortion#Reversion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Departure

Severa, before I go, I just wanted you to know that you are a jerk. You're a real ugly kneebiter. ;)

LOL. The discussions in the abortion project showed me over and over again the incredible power of consensus, and I am proud to have helped create that. Since you are the architect of much of that eventual consensus, and an unbelievably level-headed editor yourself, your words mean a lot to me. Hopefully, one day, assuming someone later in the alphabet than "Sev" joins the project, I will be able to return.

Until then... --BCSWowbagger 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thank you. Anyone reading this page should note that the above "insult" is actually a Hitcherhiker's reference (if the winky-smiley didn't give away the game). I'm glad you went with the U.S. phrasing, too. Good luck in the future, Wowbagger. I hope to see you around again sometime. :-) -Severa (!!!) 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade

Severa, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) is hard at work on the article - can you have a look and provide further input about progress and your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roe v. Wade? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk edit

What the heck? My user pages, my problem - not yours. I cleared my old messages to keep my talk page clean for the next time I get a new message. Leave it alone unless you're leaving me a message, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yurimxpxman (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC).