This is my talk page. I reserve the right to remove posts for inflammatory language, vandalism, unprovoked attacks and mortally-wounding stupidity. Although I'm not inclined to do so. I'm up for constructive criticism, genuine discussion of subjects beyond their talk pages, and requests for help or explanation. I'm not up for pyrrhic partisan coup-counting (also known as "I gotcha last!"), angry pointless rants (although pleasant and amusing ones are not necessarily discouraged), and bitterness. Crankiness, ok - we all get cranky. But frankly, bitterness just ruins my day, so I try to avoid it when ever possible.

Enjoy! Phyesalis

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respct others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! --Andrew c 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just violated the 3RR rule on Historicity of Jesus.Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Andrew c 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, thank you, I'm afraid this is a bit confusing. Can you explain why, in contrast with Wikipedia standards, when my evolving contribution has been summarily reverted at least four times, I am in violation of reverting my own contribution when it is those who reverted it in the first place without justifiable reason, without vandalism, who are in breach? I am not attempting to exclude other's contributions as others are trying to exclude mine. I introduced substantive change well within the acceptable bounds of Historiography. My argument is that the reversions constitute vandalism. Should I give warnings to those who recklessly reverted my whole contribution? I have addressed this on the page in question, but have gotten little in the way of satisfactory explanation for this vandalism. My contribution has been effectively censored with no legitimate explanation. I suspect the need for mediation or arbitration on this issue. But let's see what we can work out first on the pages, first. I will c&p this there, so as to direct further discussion to the relevant context. Thank you for any help you can offer. Phyesalis 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do not believe you actually violated the 3RR rule (because the first edit wasn't a revert), but you were close. The WP:3RR page explains the rule in detail. I know this sounds a little backward, but basically, you, as a single editor, were removing the work of other editors by reverting to a previous version (your initial edit). And since 3 different editors were reverting you (to the version before your first edit), they were not in violation of the 3RR rule. While I agree that blanket reverts aren't helpful, and those who reverted you should have explained further on talk, and assumed good faith, I do not believe they were in direct violation of any enforcable policy (even if we both agree they weren't being helpful). Hope this helps.--Andrew c 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the claims that the reverts against your version were vandalism, I do not believe those edits constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism. Unfortunately, longstanding content tends to have more weight than new content. Content that does not meet the main policy points of WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS in practice can generally be reverted (although, tagging content is better). Also drastic, controversial changes, and changes not discussed on talk before hand tend to also be reverted. Instead of 3 different editors attacking the integrity of the article (aka vandalism), 3 different editors were saying "hey, I do not agree with these edits at all". Of course it would have been more helpful to discuss things on talk, to only partially revert only the controversial content, or to tag disputed content, but once again, it is much more easier to simply revert everything. While I do believe 2 of the 3 were biting the newcomer, and were not assuming good faith, I'll say this again, I do not believe they were breaking any rules; just simply not working well with the community. All of this isn't necessarily fair, but hopefully the current discussion on the article's talk page may bring about some changes with which everyone can agree.--Andrew c 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your previous qualification. I genuinely appreciate it. I have no wish to be in error, particularly out of ignorance. However, I disagree with your characterization of blanket reversion. It seems that Wikipedia has standards to the contrary. Help:reverting makes the case for blanket reversion quite clear:

When to revert

Do's

   See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa

   * Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
   * Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
   * If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
   * If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Dont's

   * Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
   * Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
   * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
   * There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
   * Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

I agruge that summary reversion is breaking the rules. The entry states rather unambiguously: "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." It might not be vandalism per se, but it is an absue. My question is, regardless of semantic issues, what do I do about it? If you disagree with my understanding of blanket reversion, I would greatly appreciate more information on the subject. I assure you that I will not be running off to cite posters without fully investigating the matter. Please consider the use of vandalism as a point of comparison to be more of a rhetorical device, and not an incendiary threat. Although if you see it differently, I am interested in your perspective. I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Again, thank you for your time and contribution on this matter. Phyesalis 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, even though we have the guidelines that say users should do blanket reverts, and even though we both personally agree the edits in question were not helpful, unfortunately I do not believe there is anything that can be done in regards to enforcement. The guidelines says "you shouldn't blanket revert", it doesn't say "if you do this you can be temporarily banned". They must violate 3RR or some other incursion before action can be taken. I could be wrong about this, so if you want more clarification, you could post something on the administrators' noticeboard, and request that an admin examine the incident, and explain why or why not the actions of other editors are punishable.--Andrew c 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "users should do blanket reverts" or "should not"? I agree that it doesn't say one can be banned. Maybe I haven't been clear. I don't actually want to punish anyone. I understand that I'm not well-versed in all the details, I acknowledge that I made some mistakes, and I'm not trying to cover my mistakes with misplaced punitive emotions. I just want people to stop summarily reverting my contributions. My use of vandalism as a point of comparison was both a rhetorical device and (arguably) a clumsy intro into the discussion of how to stop people "biting" my contributions. It is preferable, to me, if this could happen without punitive measures on the part of the admin. I'm not trying to go over anyone's head or cry for the teacher my first day on the playground. I believe my concerns are legitimate. My understanding was that the warnings for vandalism had a range and were considered to be authored by users, not the admin, ranging from "please stop", "only a warning" all the way up to "last warning", and that the next step barring any informal remediation was to contact the admin. Again, thank you. I will spend more time on this matter. I have introduced a new discussion topic in Historicity of Jesus to clarify some issues regarding the intent of the article. I am hoping this might resolve some problems. I appreciate you taking the time to facilitate my understanding of the disagreements. Phyesalis 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over your interests and thought I'd point out an article that I recently ran across that I feel needs A LOT of help (which I do not have the time to do by myself). It's the domestic violence article. In my opinion, the article isn't very encyclopedic, has way too much argumentative and debate-style language, caters way too much to a minority POV (domestic violence against men), and needs a lot of sourcing and major rewritting. It is a pretty big task, and I understand you are new to wikipedia, but maybe you'd want to look over the page and the recent activity on talk and see if you can't improve it! Just a suggestion. --Andrew c 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I will look into it when I have the time. I admit, I'm much more interested in the debate surrounding the Historicity of Jesus page right now. I'm not sure I should move onto another topic before I get a better understanding of things. I've already entered into substantive dialogue regarding this topic. The article sounds like it needs a lot of work, I'm just not sure that I'm the person to do it right now. Please feel free to make future suggestions though. Actually, I just checked out the page. You're right, there are some obvious flaws. I'll see what I can do in the upcoming weeks. Phyesalis 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phyesalis, welcome to the article. I walked away from the Jesus series because I tired of suffering fools like Homestarmy, and after a while banging one's head against a wall is rather painful.
In any case, you are correct about historicity -- I think though, that you are probably overloading the "intellects" of some of the staunch supporters of the status quo, and that's a good thing, a damned good thing. ;) Nobis lauros! •Jim62sch• 12:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Oh my, thank you so much! It was a pleasure starting off the wikiday with your note. I was starting to feel like I signed on for some Twilight Zone episode. I think the Historicity of Jesus page would be best categorized under ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia violations. Just because some users have abused the intent of the page, doesn't mean that the page should continue to be abused! For the record, I don't actually know Latin, just familiar with a bunch of legal/common phrases. I'm sorry you walked away. Please consider coming back, I would greatly appreciate another voice in the mix. Maybe I should go back and contact all those who were muscled out? I just skimmed your user page and - where have I been? I'm particularly interested in your views on the serial comma. (And where do I find the code for all those neat extras?) I also noticed you liked Eliot. So, I will close with a favorite quote of mine from the The Wasteland (and not entirely inappropriate for the HoJ page):

"Thinking of the key, each confirms a prison." Phyesalis 18:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. :) Oh, nobis lauros means "we will succeed", (literally, "to us (will go) the laurels"). I love Eliot, and the stulti on the HoJ page remind me both of the quote you mention, and the beginning stanza of the Hollow Men:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Of course, some of them no doubt have codpieces full of straw as well. •Jim62sch• 23:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codpieces? Try merkins. Just kidding. Thank you so much! I really appreciate your help in this endeavor. They seem a bit more accepting now. Of course, I see you've noticed the JM page issues. I also wanted to let you know, I'm not a he, but a she! A female geek and proud of it. I'm grateful for the support all the same. But we don't necessarily have to share that info with our esteemed colleagues. Let's allow them the pleasure of discovering that if and when they read this page. Phyesalis 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I'd be happy to give them a bare bodkin so they might their quietus make.  ;)

I apologize for the gender screw-up -- for so long Wiki was very much like an old-boy's club that I tend to assume a masculine gender (rather foolish of me); I'm glad to see that women such as yourself, KillerChihuahua (KC), FloNight, Bishonen, SlimVirgin, have gotten more involved! KC has done much as you suggest, she figures that while she does identify her gender on her page, if no one bothers to read her page, screw 'em. In any case, I too look forward to working together. •Jim62sch• 14:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your edit on the Jesus as myth page and wanted to welcome you too. Like Jim, I walked away from the Jesus articles as I hadn't got the time to qualify every word I wrote or fight over the real meaning of phrases like "the majority of scholars" etc (it used to say "vast majority" at one stage!). We sooo need a knowledgeable person in this area so please don't let the rejection of your edits put you off. The myth/historicty and historical pages all need a rework and if you get time the Josephus on Jesus 'aint good either. Well researched and verified information deserves inclusion - but at that point they will try to hit you with undue weight. That one is hard to deal with as there is so much written that shores up their position and it can become a case of "the facts however interesting are irrelevant". But changes can be made and as you seem to have the knowledge to do this I'll look forward to reading your posts. Sophia 19:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, rats, I forgot to mention Sophia -- in my defence, she did leave the project for a bit. Hopefully, she'll join us on the article, as well as on others. She's quite knowledgeable. •Jim62sch• 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If going through my own head-banging will bring a more diverse perspective to the articles, then it's worth it, even if I'm still soaking my bruises! Thanks for mentioning all the others users, Jim. And thanks Sophia for taking the time to share your support. Some editors' view on "undue weight", with regard to these articles, is just ridiculous. I, too, hope you'll come back. Before Josephus, I'd like to get the relationship between the three contentious pages of HJ, HoJ, and JM straightened out. It would save people endless headaches. But I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up, and the lovely compliment. It is most encouraging. Phyesalis 21:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phyesalis, I just made a response to your commutation test comment on the List of oxymorons talk page. But it strikes me that we're filling up a lot of space there. I'm wondering whether we should continue there, or move out and discuss it in our own space—maybe put a note there in case anyone else wants to follow the argument. The question of whether unborn baby belongs on a list of oxymorons is peripheral to the question of what validity there is, if any, in the concept of the "correct meaning" of a word, which is what this is really about. There are issues of usage and linguistic history here which are pretty tangential to the topic of oxymorons

One interesting (to me) little side-issue. As a New Zealander, I normally follow British spellings rather than American ones, which means I don't reduce the old ae and oe digraphs to e. Up until this discussion I have always used the spelling foetus, which is the usual British spelling, and assumed that this was also the spelling of the Latin original. When I looked the word up in one of my old dictionaries, it gave both spellings, and made the comment that the spelling foetus originates in an old misspelling of the old Latin word fētus. Whether the misspelling was a later Latin one or an English one, it doesn't make clear...

Anyway, do you want to keep the discussion where it is, or move it into our own pages? I treat User Talk pages and online journals as personal space, and subject to the rules of being a good guest, if I'm in someone else's space, and a courteous host if I'm in my own. Let me know what you want to do, and we'll take it from there.

Cheers, Copey 2 02:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Copey. Thank you for the consideration. My understanding is that your old dictionary would be correct as it confirms what I've found in the etymology, that for some reason the British picked up the exception. I don't know how that happened. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what we are discussing. Do you just want to chat about language, or do you want to dispute the word on the list? I'd be happy to discuss general language stuff here, but if we're disputing the word remaining on the list, I'd rather do that on the talk page. The way I see it, the discussion of "correct" meanings is central to whether or not "unborn baby" belongs on the list. Your thesis of "words mean whatever we want them to mean" is a major deconstruction of language, relying on an impossibly insular location of meaning in the self/speaker. Language is both subjective (self) and objective (social group as target and source of language acquisition). If you are correct, to the exclusion of my arguments, then there are no oxymorons at all, and the list itself is pointless. And to be fair, one of my professors studied with Barthe. I do not misunderstand the commutation test, but used it in an (admittedly) over-simplified argument to make my point. It isn't a straight up math/logic syllogism, it is a semiotic formula of discreteness and significant similarity. If you would like to discuss this further, allow me to make a request. Your counter does not disprove my point, merely questions one of the "proofs" I offer in support of it. If you want to dispute the word, would mind removing your response from the middle of my post on the talk page, and I shall respond to you there. If you do not want to dispute the word, and still want to debate the issues, would you mind copying our exchange (but not remove it) to this page - and extracting your response from mine? I find it to be rather difficult to sort through exchanges that are mixed in like that, other users probably have a harder time of it. Thank you, I am enjoying the discussion. Phyesalis 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I want to discuss is the broad issue, but with a focus on the particular phrase. I want to leave a response to your commutation test in the oxymoron Talk page, but I'll shift it, as its present position does break the flow. I'll redo it as well, for the benefit of anyone else following the argument - what happens if you substitute "2-week-old infant" for "fetus", etc. The history of the use of the word baby (and the older babe) is a major issue.

We could split the argument - would that be a pain? I can answer some of your points above without reference to the phrase. The accuracy of your representation of my position as "words mean whatever we want them to mean" depends on what you mean by "we", or rather, what you think I mean by "we". I don't locate meaning in the individual speaker; I do locate it in the speech community he or she belongs to, be it a small circle of people, or a worldwide community using a language. And I'm still trying to find out where you locate authority as to meaning.

I hope I haven't been too patronising in all this. I've been accustomed in the past to defining "patronising" as a word you use of someone else when they're being nice to you, and you still want to hate them. It now seems to me it can be a word to use of oneself, when you're trying to express respect to someone, and you keep undershooting the mark.

Cheers—Copey 2 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your observations on "patronising". I admit to having been put off by about the "minority politics" comment in your first post (on other page). But I appreciate your manner in our subsequent exchanges. Let me say that even outside of the particular debate of the word being on the list, you bring up points that I am honestly interested in discussing. Particularly your point about Maori biologists and ika/fish/ika/whales. It brings up excellent questions about language in general, but English (via imperialism) in particular, and cultural context. I'm interested in the etymological origins of ika. How does it translate as fish? Or does it mean water-dweller, or classify things that move through the water and fish is the closest comparable word? I actually don't know and am asking a sincere question - I know nothing about Maori specifically, other than what I just gleaned from the WP pages on it. But I'm a little more familiar with issues surrounding the transliteration of oral indigenous languages into English.

As for an approach to our debate, how about this - for now, we can keep the whole debate here as you originally suggested, post a link on the talk page in the meantime with the minor clean up and a note about ongoing discussion, and agree to c&p a brief summary in the near future? Please know, I am not pretending to any stage of semiotician or linguist. My studies are diversely interdisciplinary. But as a general note, I say this not out of snideness but honesty, I have no interest in having a semantic debate as a blind for political interpretations of meaning. Allow me to put my own cards on the table, I'm not aware of the specifics regarding anti-choice politics in New Zealand, but in the U.S. they are the distinct minority. The majority of Americans respect a woman's right to choose regardless of their personal views on abortion, which is why it is legal in all 50 states on the state level, regardless of the Supreme Court's repeated rulings that laws prohibiting abortion on the federal level were unconstitutional.

In reference to your question about what kind of common categorical distinctions American culture makes between "fetus" as and "baby", each word belongs to diametrically opposed categories. This is an issue of natality, of or relating to birth, wich is the defining difference between "fetus" and "baby". The word fetus (8 weeks to birth) is commonly used as an umbrella word for all gestational stages, while the word baby is an indeterminate and euphemistic word for infant. Even when abortion was illegal in some places (and in the overview of U.S. history these were brief anomalies) neither women nor doctors were charged with murder or homicide, as would be the case if they had killed baby. Insurance companies will not let one claim a fetus as a member of the family, they will insure a baby as such at birth. An insurance company will insure pre-natal services but these are associated with the mother, the insured client. Post-natal services are consequently associated with the now birthed and insured member, the baby.

The the distinctions of natality apply in common language. The common use of baby with respect to gestation is "I am having a baby." signifying that I am going to give birth to an infant, and that I do not yet have a baby because it hasn't been given birth to yet, and as such does not exist yet. When one says "I had a baby" it is commonly understood that the woman in question gave birth to a live infant. When an American woman says "I have a baby" she means that she has an infant (that has been born). Again, if we apply the word "fetus" in a commutation test, the sentences would mean something completely difference. First, the sentence "I'm having a fetus" is almost gibberish. "I had a fetus" does not signify birth and subsequent existence of offspring. Likwise, "I have a fetus" signifies a gestating or pre-natal lifeform in a specific stage of development, not a post-natal infant.

Statements B1, B2, and B3 all signify post-natal existence. F1, F2, and F3 all signify an antonymical state of pre-natal gestation. "Unborn baby" is an oxymoron that means "fetus".

Other examples of this would be the differences between statements like "I am a baby" and "I am a fetus" or "Claude's a happy baby" and "Claude's a happy fetus". I acknowledge your challenge of "crawl", but reassert that babyhood or infancy is determined with the first breath. "The baby cried" and "the fetus cried" are not the same thing. By categorical definition, a baby can cry and a fetus cannot(no air for vocalization). Once a fetus has taken it's first breath and then commonly given it's first cry, it has been born and is a baby. Additionally, the statement, "the baby is two years old", does not include any stage of gestation, the baby has only been a baby for two years, not two years and nine months.

That's my argument in a nutshell. Now I present to you the friendly challenge of countering it. And looking forward to your response about ika. Thank you for the discussion, and for leaving the phrase on the list while we discuss this. It has been noted and is appreciated. 74.70.206.92 11:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (added sig)Phyesalis 11:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, you forgot the biggest argument for calling a fetus a fetus: try claiming it on your 1040. ;) •Jim62sch• 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're so right!

Hi, Denni. I noticed your theory on deletionism. You reverted my contribution to the list of oxymorons, please see the on-going discussion about "unborn baby" on the talk page. Also, please note that the article is still asking for contributions. And when you delete someone's contribution, please give a reason for it. Most of us appreciate that. Thank you. Phyesalis 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phyesalis -

Sorry about the long delay in getting back to you - seems your message immediately preceeded another, and I only saw the second one as I was archiving my talk page. I've been following your discussion with Copey2, and I must say it is really refreshing to follow such an intelligent and well-mannered debate. I reverted your addition to the list before I'd read the goings-on, but left it the second time you added it. I must say that I agree with Copey2 - I believe the proof of a language is more in its use than in its logic. Your argument is quite correct from a technical point of view, but I suspect that few English speakers would accept this as an oxymoron. Cheers, Denni ^talk 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, believe me, I'm very glad that someone is deciding to give History of abortion the attention it deserves. :-) I did reply to you on why I think that the 19th century advertising information is a better fit under "Medical" than "Social" in the "In use" thread on Talk:History of abortion, but you might have missed it, probably because I refered to only one "comment" in my edit summary.[1] I'm sorry if I was a little quick to revert, and I'm certainly open to rearranging the article in such a fashion as you've suggested, as it doesn't really present a major change in terms of content. I just tend to favour sections which have a very rigidly-defined scope. I'm sure that we can define the most appropriate scope for each section and determine the ideal ordering of sections from there. -Severa (!!!) 06:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to let you know that I've replied at User talk:Jakew. Jakew (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I would like to personally recognize your efforts to improve the article on female genital cutting and to thank you for your recent exceptional editing of the History of Terminology section by bestowing onto you this Barnstar. Your work is very appreciated! ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Physesalis, just to be clear-- you do think that the new version of Purgatory is the better one??

I just ask because I've had more trouble getting it to stay up than I'd expected. When I wrote it, I sort of naively expected it would immediately be hailed as an improvement by all sides of the pre-existing POV dispute I was trying to mediate. Turns out, I was a little over-optimistic, and the two editors on one side of the dispute strongly oppose the change. So, I just wanted to check in with oyu and be extra double clear you think the new version should come it, rather than just infer it from your statment. :)

Thanks again for helping out! --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been thinking about this. Your edits, while they address the POV issue, lack in citation. I would suggest that you find some sources on purgatory and the arts, which is where you might find support for the (correct) assertions about the laity's perspective on purgatory. Check it in association with Milton, Dante and Dore. Also, maybe a peer-review article on the subject would help. If you can work some better citations in, I won't have a problem building on my previous opinion. You did some good work, just keep at it. Phyesalis (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on Female Genital Cutting. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm happy to lend a hand, but I'm a little confused about what the central dispute is. What exactly is this guy objecting to?QuizzicalBee 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. The editor in question keeps reverting my contributions and challenging them with WP policy. When I respond in great detail (with citation sources), he refuses to respond in kind and continues to repeat the same thing over and over ("It's a violation!" without specifying why my and other pre-existing citations are no good. He has twice accused me of things a simple diff check shows I didn't do. He seems to want to make every tiny problem with the article my fault (I only recently started editing it) Right now, the issues are whether or not my last edits to the Female Genital Cutting#Cultural and religious aspects are NOR, NPOV, SYN and R. He reverted them twice without substantive discussion, and to avoid an edit war I have stepped back and asked for input. I have provided an overview under Talk:Female genital cutting#Blackworm's objections. He's failed to assume good faith from our first interaction. I didn't help things much by eventually responding to his tone in kind, but since then, I have tried to discuss this with him on his talk page. He's basically told me that it's my responsiblity how to figure out why my contributions are a violation. The problem is that he has never once provided sources to show that my edits are. Now, I'm no expert, but I actually did study this issue in college. He doesn't really understand the subject. He doesn't get the medicalization aspects (nor issues of cultural relativism), keeps asserting that it is a religious practice (there are multiple sources in the section saying it's not and none to the contrary) and is in general being disruptive. Any suggestions? Phyesalis 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I looked at the dispute and found it rather confusing. Here are a few observations that may help:

• A series of small changes are usually more acceptable to other editors. If you make a big change and someone makes a wholesale revert, a whole lot of your work goes down the drain at once, and that's not pleasant.
• The policies of Wikipedia are both a safeguard for the quality of articles and a weapon that can be used ruthlessly by cultural warriors. If a charge of original research is made, it could be right. I think your problem with saying that female genital cutting is a religious practice has to do with the culture wars that surround the subject. Reformers want to distance it from Islam so that it can be eradicated without challenging religious orthodoxies. Meanwhile, some Islamic scholars do support the practice on the grounds of religious tradition [2] and others are using the same religious traditions to argue against the practice [3]. I don't know if these references would pass muster but they may help.
• Watch out for undue weight. This happens when an article or a part of an article has a disproportionate emphasis on what is a small point. The use of more extensive quotes in footnotes may help to alleviate this problem.

Hope that this helps. Michael Glass 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm saying (in line with all the sources) that it is not a religious practice. There are some specific religious sub-cultures that do practice it but this can not be used to support the assertion that it is a "religious practice", particularly in the face of all the citations (including a tertiary source - the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an). Are you looking at my edit or BW's current edit? Most arguments are about a mix between religious justification for a pre-existing cultural practice. It is not OR and is supported by the citations in the section. How is it that I provide citations and he doesn't, yet his argument of OR is legit? I'm sorry, but I just can't understand how the burden of proof doesn't apply to us equally. It would be extremely helpful if you could explain this to me. I appreciate the response. Phyesalis 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion/request. It would be helpful to me, and I think to others and even to you and Blackworm if you would describe clearly on the talk page each of the various edits under contention, and provide a place for discussion of each edit, refraining from taking up any space there with comments about user behaviour or other extraneous stuff. (If it's really necessary to say anything about user behaviour, user talk pages are a more appropriate place.) May I suggest that you create a subsection (header with 3 equals signs) about each particular edit (e.g. each sentence being edited, or other logical subdivision into small edits), quoting what it said originally as well as what you want to change it to, and your reasons for wanting to change it, and invite others to discuss each edit within each subsection. At the moment the discussion is rather opaque to outsiders -- pretty much all one sees is comments about who reverted what when, not much about what the article really ought to say or why -- e.g. you say "sources" but don't name what specific sources you mean. If you lay it out as I suggest, it would be easier for me to get involved in the discussion. By the way, 3R is not an entitlement. --Coppertwig 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again at my talk page. By the way, I'm not sure if I mentioned it already but I redirected Talk:FGC to Female genital cutting a day or so ago so that your messages would make more sense. [[FGC]] still goes to a disambiguation page, though. --Coppertwig 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking m for help re: Talk:Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. I corrected an obvious error in the statistical discussion of the article. It appears to me , however, that a more in-depth help would require significant time; I doubt that I have that available but see what I can do. Ekem 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sure we can find a compromise. I realize that PAS is not medically recognized and that it is more politically controversial than it is medically. I agree with your view. However, when you described PAS as a term "used by pro-lifers" and a "rejected theory," all in about one or two sentences, I just thought the wording was a bit too "in your face." Perhaps we can find another word to replace "diagnosis" and take out "rejected theory." And perhaps the sentence about the fact that it is mostly used by pro-lifers can be moved to another part of the lead paragraph. mirageinred (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. There has to be a better word for "diagnosis," but I can't really think of one. What about "a set of symptoms that are proposed to occur in women" or something like that? mirageinred (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re comments such as "It is disruptive - for someone who refuses to read provided quotes, let alone whole articles, you really need to show a little more good faith." and "From the very beginning your attitude toward me has been unacceptable, ": If you must discuss such things, would you please move it to user talk pages or someplace so the article talk page can be kept focussed on article content discussion? It would really help. Thanks. I'm posting a similar message at User talk:Blackworm. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a thank you for putting your two cents in on the "see Sharp Press" contriversy. too often people shy away from the RfC because the debate has hit the "uncontrolably hostile" catagory (I will admit to loging on to wikipedia about every hr. during that one just to see who had screamed next...poor behavior, but I am human)

Your comment actually cooled things down a bit, it was pointed out by one of the members and we where able to simmer down and get on with it. so Thank You for your contribution.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am not shure how familiar you are with bell hooks, usualy she does race, but recently she has focused her attention to feminism and relationships. her talk at USC (i believe that was the school) last month focused on relationships, and how to form a partnership today. anyway, feminism is one of my interests, so I just wanted to pass that one along.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phyesalis. Yes, I have some questions:

Did you respond the same way to the people who remove the link to the discussion group constantly?

Do you think you are neutral in this case? To me it seems you're not unfortunately.

What's your comment about the fact that WP has the exception I was talking about?

Why did you quote a big episode of how to revert on my talk page? I think that is not very useful and a little schoolmarmish.

Last but not least I think it's not very relevant to be a relatively new user or not. Apart from that I'm active at Wikipedia for some years, but unfortunately my old (Dutch) sign in didn't work in the English version.
Lampje (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampje. First of all, terribly sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending, I really thought you were a new user (that's generally what a blank user talk page means, right?). Polite discussion of edit warring and 3RR violations is always relevant to a new user who might not be aware of WP policy. What if you had been a new, enthusiastic editor making changes in good faith but didn't know about the 3RR violation or the implications of edit warring? If you read at the top of my talk page, I was once that editor. Someone tagged me with a 3RR violation when not only didn't I know about it - I hadn't even committed the violation! Nonetheless, the editor's note eventually lead to me having a much better understanding of the rules. I was merely trying to give a presumably new editor a heads up so that they didn't make unintentional mistakes. I swear. I had no way of knowing you had been an editor for a long time under a different signature. My comment was that WP policy clearly frowns on discussion groups as external links. I only made the comment about edit warring to you on your talk page because in the time since I made the RfC comment, you were the only person I noticed who had reverted it more than once. Leaving WP policy on new users' talk pages is pretty standard fare, I'm not sure how that makes me schoolmarmish.Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose schoolmarmish is not the right word, sorry about that. English is not my motherlanguage, so it's sometimes difficult for me to find the right words. May be next time it 's better to post a link to 'how to revert' instead of paste and copy such an amount of text. I'm convinced about your good intentions. Lampje (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the good faith. No offense taken. Phyesalis (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phyesalis

Sorry, I don't even remember editing that article, it must be at least two years since I last did. Were you able to work it out? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you close the RFA for History of sex slavery. I just redirected it, but I can't find the proper tag to close an RFA AFD. --Sharkface217 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, whoops. Sorry about that tiny mistake (I get so confused between the millions of Wiki-acronyms). I posted a note that I redirected. --Sharkface217 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may already know this so I hope you don't mind if I try to be helpful here, but if you ever need to refer back to a record of who said what when, the only really good evidence is diff links, like this, as asked for in the instructions at the top of WP:AN/I, for example. Linking to a talk page or a section of a talk page doesn't prove anything, because it could get archived or deleted after you link to it, or anybody could have edited the words above someone's signature, for good or bad reasons (oops, no, couldn't have been for bad reasons :-). A diff link shows with certainty who the author of a comment was. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Saying "feel free to revert" wasn't as polite as I thought it was when I said it, because it uses up one of your reverts if you're counting for 3RR. I should have thought of that, especially since I think I've been in this same situation before, and should have written "feel free to revert or ask me to self-revert pending discussion". I've just put up a self-revert userbox. Unfortunately I don't always follow my own advice :-\ I've criticized people in the past for going ahead and editing a section that was already under discussion. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I edited your comment to fix the link to WP:BRD which is what I think you meant; you had BDR which was a redlink. By the way, diff links and external links only need single square brackets. (Maybe you put the extra square brackets as punctuation.) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology again. Some of my behaviour more recently has been more selfishly motivated than I admitted to myself, and I didn't afford you the level of consideration and sensitivity that I intended to and that I thought you deserved. I also failed to take my own advice about waiting 24 hours before responding in certain situations. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I appreciate how you've been keeping the discussion at Talk:Reproductive rights largely focussed on article content rather than editor behaviour recently. It makes things easier. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article still totally disputed? I also took after IronAngelAlice's lead and made some edits I felt were needed. Your feedback is needed, thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, no worries; Holidays were good the DUI hitting me from behind wasn't. I still have go through your old list and see what I've missed, and need to review Russo studies to see if "reinterpreted" is accurate in the lead. I came across this conservative source, which may leads me to believe it isn't a reinterpretation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes there is something wrong, I've allowed you to make poor additions to the article; I'm not being unreasonable, and don't mistake trying to improve the article with WP:OWN. I find some of your positions unverifiable or based on tangential interpretation of good (Jasen) and not so good (NCI) sources.

The reason this has occurred is because you found a misquote I made for Russo on carcinogens. Though as it turns out it actually was a small mistake as they mention higher carcinogen results for abortion from other studies in the first part of the paragraph on the previous page (something I obviously inferred into the quote). Initially this put me in a defensive position and less apt to challenge your edits; also I was busy and had less time and inclination to scrutinize your edits. I've unburdened myself of that and require you meet the same standards you justly prevail upon me.

While I'm certainly capable of being unreasonable, you'll have to be more specific if I am to address any valid concerns you have. Of recent decisions and edits, I truly fail to see anything amiss apart from verified edits you (and others) disagree with (such as Daling), which is good in my books because it may force y'all to reevaluate your perception of some aspects of the ABC evidence. Presenting Brind in such an unflattering conspiratorial way, and not bothering to present his POV does go against the policy I referred you to.

It worries me, that instead of directly addressing my points; such as Daling's significant results, you side step the hard issues and questions and ask me to form a "consensus" for possible point of contention. There is no need to run the ABC article as if it were a democracy, if that happened you guys would continue to maintain ABC was/is "rejected" and akin to pseudoscience. Which it verifiably isn't.

Who died and made you or anyone else here more knowledgeable than me on the ABC issue? Why did you not notice and include Daling's statistically significant findings on nulliparous women? After all it was in the freely available abstract; and you've asserted yourself as well read on Daling and her work. Why did it take an accidental addition by a partisan pro-choice blogger to add WHO's notable interpretation of the ABC evidence to the lead? I'm digging in because you are being difficult. Yes, you are part of the problem Phyesalis... heh, and my long-windedness is too. You're convictions on ABC, Daling and other matters simply do not coincide precisely with the evidence; and when it does you are highly selective on the evidence you choose to consider. Mend your ways, or not, your prerogative... please just don't leave a disjointed mess on the ABC article and think I'll just leave it be based on your, at times, curiously sloppy interpretation of WikiPolicy.

Truth be told, I've been aggrieved with the recent lack luster rationales recently put forward by those I've come to trust. But it seems when things become ambiguous and contentious, they also will opt for the direction they are most comfortable with. Ultimately, that good faith fallacy is what all of this is about; and seems to be the true extent of the "conspiracy" against the ABC hypothesis. No malevolence nor deceit, just poor weighing of evidence and arguments to suit a narrowly defined and frustratingly unimaginative "war". I appreciate and share your concern, for it is well justified; but directed at the wrong subject... me.

As to the GA, yes I agree... the article will continue to be unverified (rejected) and contested (editorial of Brind) if the changes I've outlined and supported with straightforward policy and reliable sources are not addressed. The weirdest part is, as I've said in the past, the ABC issue can actually be leveraged and utilized by the pro-choice movement against pro-life legislation. It's not my fault they've allowed themselves to be cornered into a defensive "deny all" mentality. Which has seen them lose ground over the years. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy and paste this to the ABC article talk, after you've had a chance to review it. As it has several ideas I'd like to reiterate there. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RoyBoy, I've come to value our civil and mostly good-natured exchanges. I'd like to get back to that point. How might we do this in a way that will showcase your hard work and get this article back to GA, if not on to FA? Because that's what we both want, right? Phyesalis (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I've learned from experience nothing is impossible with time, empathy and good faith collaborators; sometimes you just don't have those elements. When this occurs POV pushers rule the roost, careful contributors leave out of frustration, and critics of Wikipedia chuckle.

I just spent half my evening on this, and no article content has been improved or generated. This is why Wikipedia is not a democracy. Yes, consensus is key... but without one, you get mixed results. I'm so out of it, I want to ask you an off-topic question. Do you understand the significance of "death" being in the Abortion lead? Or do you just see POV pro-life language? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I think - I think you need some chocolate covered almonds! Seriously, why don't we both agree to step back from ABC, and its talk page, for 24 hours, maybe even 48 (and give poor MastCell a break :)? Many of the changes you want are in the article as it stands. It's not going anywhere. Let's just step away for 48 hrs and then regroup. We can generate a list of debated inclusions/exclusions and work on them one by one, come to an agreement, and get the article relisted. I'll spend the time not working on the article thinking of ways to improve on our process. Phyesalis (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To your question

As for your question, let me mirror what I think you are asking me. When you write "Do you understand the significance of "death" being in the abortion lead? Or do you just see POV pro-life language?" I see a loaded question, the bullet being the assumption that the two are mutually exclusive. When you phrase the question as such, I kind of feel like I'm being set up.

But you have asked the question, and I will do my best to answer. I do see a significance, that some people think it is important to stress the death of the embryo or fetus. Do I see this as a form of POV pushing? Well, yes, in a way. But frankly I don't care. Abortion is a procedure that terminates pregnancy - another way to look at it is that abortion kills an embryo/fetus. Both have their advantages. On the one hand, the former has less emotional rhetoric. On the other had, the latter does get to the heart of the matter. Abortion is a form of death/killing. I'm ok with that. I think it's a matter of intellectual dishonesty to avoid that basic truth. Do I think that it needs to be stated as it is in the first sentence of the lead? No. It could be dealt with in a section dealing with Pro-life perspectives. But whatever, that's not a battle I choose to fight at the moment (if ever). Why do you ask? Phyesalis (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't agree with adding the fact that she was a former sex worker in first place, but it's really trivial to argue over small things in first place. Quite frankly, his edit summaries and his conduct doesn't really give me the desire to work with him constructively. I just don't think that her description needs to be that specific and I find it almost excessive. I feel like saying that she is "a former worker and an advocate for sex workers' rights" gets to the point with brevity without saying "she is a spokesperson for so and so." By the way, feel free to provide your input at RfC. Thanks. миражinred 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that adding the "work history" datum is a bit unnecessary. Personally, I seem to remember her making an argument on the subject as it was tied to prostitution. If we use a quote to that effect, the datum might be relevant. If not, I think maybe just limiting her context to the singular but specific mention of PONY advocacy would be more than enough. Phyesalis (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'll see what I can do in terms of looking over the discussion and evaluating the source material, etc. I think I'm pretty good at sorting these sorts of things out but we'll see. I usually read the talk page thoroughly to get a feeling for the dispute before wading into the discussion and I haven't done that yet. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't get around to doing anything tonight but I appreciate the information that this might be an extension of other conflicts. I'll have to deal with the article in front of me though, and not get into any other issues. My initial impression is that the article may need some refocusing of the topic and a clearer sense of the coverage of article (what to include or exclude) and perhaps a little restructuring. The sources mostly seem good altho the ones in the Men section seem weaker at first glance. This is just a first pass impression so don't hold me to it. I'll probably comment later today (Weds) on the talk page of the article with whatever meager opinions I can offer. Cheers, Pigman☿ 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: disengagement. Not a problem. Sometimes it is the best course of action to gain perspective, particularly in heated discussions like this one. I'll be keeping an eye on the article but don't hesitate to ask me to take a closer look if I miss something. Blackworm has a point as well as an obvious POV in relation to this article. However I believe his time would be better spent conceptualizing a structured counterpoint section with relevant and valid sources/cites than haggling over wording in the first few sentences. Such a section would make it much easier to incorporate the view into the lede of the article. Um, sorry to think aloud to you; that's unlikely to help you disengage and I do think a period of disengagement is a good idea for you. Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering your help despite your edit war at reproductive rights. Based on your civility you demonstrated to other editors, I'm sure it will go the right direction in the end. After Asian fetish was protected, User:Crotalus horridus suggested editing the article at a sandbox as a temporary solution. I deleted fringe solutions and thus some of the sections have been left blank. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the article at my sandbox. It has additional sources from the Rolling Stones and GLAAD which I think are reliable. миражinred 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, feel free to copy edit. миражinred 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your feedback. The sandbox was supposed to be a temporary solution for protection so feel free to edit or invite other users to improve the article. миражinred 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that categorisation such as this is so vague as to be useless, and it clogs the master categories. People wanting to know about topics pertaining to geography won't want to know about some village in where ever that is. I changed it to the more specific Category:Geography of Maharashtra. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phyesalis I'm going to recommend you disengage from Blackworm. I'm advising you to follow dispute resolution. Step three - disengage. Pigman is a sysop and is aware of the situation. Wait for further engagement from him or others. Do not let this dispute (or the other two) spill-out and cause real stress - that will hamper your judgment. Disengage and come back to it tomorrow or the day after. The issue may not have been resolved but it might be better to take some time out and relax and come back to it with a fresh mind and renewed AGF. I've seen and mediated disputes before, temporary disengagement is a starting point for their resolution--Cailil ^talk 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]