User talk:Chuz Life

Welcome!

 * }

Your constructive User comments are welcome here. --Chuz Life (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All you would need would be a textbook or journal article that supports your opinion to be heard. Wikipedia is primarily based on third party reliable sources.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have already said in the discussion forum, this will one day take carer of itself. If that source is not already available, it will be soon.; "The differences between anti-abortion and pro life" --Chuz Life (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well when proper sources are available we can than add this. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you had time to read my latest version, Doc? --Chuz Life (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I edit many things and do not have time to read everything. You will have me and many others convinced if you can provide either a textbook or a peer reviewed journal publication. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources I have found and have provided now are already being recognized by Wikipedia in other articles.
 * As you are the only editor who has shown any real interest, I was hoping you would comment on my latest edit suggestion. --Chuz Life (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world.
 * In many regions there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion social movements. Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"
 * Can you provide a link here to the ref you wish to us to support this. Thanks -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure I can. Which part in particular would you like to see support for? The Terminology is supported here. And the observation that the first paragraph contains "framing" is indicated in several places including the two I just linked to.--Chuz Life (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe Doc is looking for verification from one or more third party reliable sources, not links to the internal Wikipedia articles which you feel have a bearing on the topic. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe Doc can speak for himself. And the Wikipedia articles already have as their sources the supportive links that I am using in my amendment. Those sources are precisely what makes the first paragraph on(Abortion)inconsistent with the other Articles on the subject. More specifically, those articles and their sources illustrate that paragraph one on Abortion is not consistent with the call for neutraluity and a "world wide" application expected by "wikipedia."


 * "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are (as the articles explain) primarily American lables used to "frame" the issue and to demonize the opposition. As such, the terms have no reasonable place in paragraph one on the "world wide" subject of "abortion."--Chuz Life (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Yes it is third party references I am looking for. Which are the refs are you using specifically? Can you link them here please? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not clear as to what specifically you are asking me to support with a 3rd party source. The fact that "pro-life and "pro-choice" are loaded terms? Why isn't the AP article (already cited) suffiecient for that? Just the same, I found this article while searching for others...


 * I'd like to share this post from another editor that pretty much shares the same sentiment and concerns that I have.


 * "Pro-life is not a good name for Wikipedia to use. It's misleading and unclear. It does not include the issue in the name and is really a self chosen marketing term used to make it sound all very positive. Outside the abortion sphere many anti-abortionists are anything but pro-life. They may support war. They may support capital punishment. A similar argument could probably be made about pro-choice, but not quite so strong. Giving people a choice is a less absolute position. This discussion highlights the difficulty of using simple and simplistic labels for people with diverse views on a complex issue. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)"


 * At least I'm not alone in my observations. --Chuz Life (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry maybe I was not clear. I am asking for either a textbook reference or a journal article reference. Thanks. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That part is abundantly clear. You want me to provide references. I get it. What is un-clear is what it is (specifically) that you would like for me to find a reference for, and in support of. Having read several of your other exchanges, I have to conclude that you already know better than to suggest that I have not supported my views. But, I'll bite. Why don't you just tell me what it is (specifically) that you want me to provide references in support of? --Chuz Life (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Abortion articles and 1RR
As I see you've been going back and forth a bit with other editors on, I wanted to make sure you're aware that abortion-related articles are subject to a 1RR rule (that is, no more than 1 revert per 24-hour period). To be clear, I don't think you've violated that rule - I just want to make sure you're aware of it. As you might expect, the rule was instituted to try to reduce edit-warring and increase talk-page discussion in this controversial topic area. There's more background at the relatively recent Arbitration case on abortion, including information about the discretionary sanctions to which the topic area is subject. MastCell Talk 19:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thank you. I am aware of the 1RR rule and I like it. I think it's a good rule. I was surprised, franky - that anyone would have had a problem wwith my most recent edits. I tried as best I could to conform to the existing format of the article and to support my added information and quotes with references to the cited material. Thanks for the link to the other. However, I would still like to have a section or sub-section for sides to present a summary of their Constitutional arguments. Wouldn't you? L.L. Brown (aka Chuz Life) 20:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Your recent editing history at Beginning of human personhood shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''Do not violate the 1RR rule at Beginning of human personhood. Please revert yourself.'' Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon review, the more senior editors will see that it is you who is violating the revert rules here - by using it to target myself personally and to discourage articles and information that you personally are sensitive to. I have abided by the rules by soliciting editors input and discussions in the TALK pages and you have not worked with me to be constructive at all. So, if it takes getting a ban - temporary or permanent to get your actions scrutinized along with my own? So be it.L.L. Brown (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:1RR at Beginning of human personhood (see General sanctions/Abortion/Log). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Admins, please notice that User: Ohnoitsjamiehas now reverted my edits to the Beginning of human personhood article WITHOUT a fair discussion of the edit and in violation of the Revert Only When Necessary policy. And she did so during my ban - only minutes after I pointed it out here - that my edits had not been removed prior to my temporary ban. Why are users being allowed to revert another users edits with only a (subjective) allegation and no discussion about how the edit violates an editing rule? If there is a consensus and discussion required to edit material, it only seems logical (and fair) that the same be required BEFORE reverting another users edits. L.L. Brown  (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The page you are linking to is someone's "essay", as clearly noted at the top of the page. It is not a policy.  Kuru   (talk)  02:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kuru - for pointing that out to me. Being that it is an essay, can you tell how (if at all) it differs from any actual editing rules? L.L. Brown (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Response


 * Also, Kuru since Binksternet reverted more of my edits in the same time period than I did by undoing his reverts. Undos that were necessary to restore my edits. How is it that I have violated the rule against too many reverts and he did not do the same when his count started first? How is it that I am abusing the revert function, when I am the one TRYING to engage him and others in the discussions about my edits and the article while he is simply imposing his belief's by reverting my additions? Given HIS history of edit warring, I hope you will reconsider my actions as well as my information above. L.L. Brown  (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that more than one editor reverted your edit should tell you something. Your point about "fair discussion" is silly, as if every new addition to a page is allowed to stay until it's been discussed. As I noted in the edit summary, I was in agreement with Binksternet (a veteran editor who knows a thing or two about policy) that the your edit clearly violated WP:UNDUE.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Simply reverting my edits with an allegation and with no discussion does not tell me anything about the validity of the edit itself. Especially when the other user has a history of abusing that option. As far as material staying until it has been discussed? Why not leave it - unless of course the violation is blatant? Or, at the very least, revert it with an invitation to the TALK section - to discuss the reasons for WHY it was reverted. Instead of leaving the IMPRESSION that it was only in your (likely biased) opinion - that the post was in violation.L.L. Brown (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you directing me to an article that only stresses the point that I was trying to make? That the need for communications, discussions, etc. should be at least attempted before actions are taken? The article says;"In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." It would have been nice to have actually had those discussions instead of having edits and reverts by users who only want to pretend that they did.L.L. Brown (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Critique of The Abortion Page
(undent) I've been reviewing the logs for the Abortion page and I've been visiting the profiles of the users who have been warned and or banned. So far, I haven't found even one user warned for posting anything that could be even remotely seen as advancing a "pro-choice" agenda. For an effort that supposedly pushes a NEUTRAL point of view by ALL, I actually expected to see at least a sample of users from both sides of the spectrum. Can anyone point me to the user profile of anyone warned or banned for edits and articles that were seen as weighing too heavy in favor of keeping abortions legal? L.L. Brown (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are assuming a false parity between the two sides of the abortion debate. There is, however, no parity there: one side comes into the topic armed for bear while the other side was more likely concerned with other issues. Frankly, the pro-life editors are more prone to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality than the pro-choicers. This is reflected in the log that you examined. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I knew that someone would try to respond with that claim. The parity of the Abortion page can be objectively 'scored' by simply taking a piece of paper, making three columns (Pro-neutral-Con) and then by scoring each of the 'talking points' raised. The formula or test for which is; "which side benefits most from this piece of information being in the article?" I haven't scored the Abortion page yet but after I return later, I intend to do so. How about we do that and then compare scores here later on?L.L. Brown  (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FACEDESK I can't even get through the whole page. It's not even close and I have to say I'm disgusted by some of the obvious (though subliminal) pro-choice slants and digs. What a shame that the article was ever allowed to become so one sided.L.L. Brown (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being pedantic, how can something be both obvious and subliminal? :) More seriously, I think your approach presupposes that the Wikipedia article is a battlefield where each piece of information must necessarily score points for one side or the other. Good articles start with the highest-quality available sources, and follow where they lead. On politically polarized or controversial topics, it's all the more paramount to commit to using the best available sources. If there are high-quality reliable sources you feel we've neglected, then please comment at the talkpage. For medical information related to abortion, this guideline helps define quality sources, while for the social/cultural/political aspects of the question, the general sourcing guidelines are probably most appropriate. MastCell Talk 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Point for Point here we go. 1. If you are scrutinizing an article and you are actually looking for subtle (subliminal) tweaks and you actually find them in spades, they become more and more obvious. 2. I'm not presupposing anything when I consider the entirety of the effort. The one sided context of the page, combined with the history of the edits (and reverts) and the one sided banning of users. The issue is in fact a battleground and I have no problem if the article recognizes that or if it doesn't. However, BOTH sides should be able to find the information useful and neither side should have veto power (per the ban logs and edit history) over the other as this page clearly does. 3. Example, I actually tried to update the page with factual information about the Unborn Victims of Violence act and the impact that it makes on the abortion issue by making it a crime of murder to illegally kill a "child in the womb." Though factual, the information was railroaded back off the page with no discussion or signs of consideration... DESPITE the fact that there are people doing time in prison right now- for the MURDERs of prenatal children. 4. I have been following the rules and the guidelines already and while there are a number of edits I would like to make. I also see that such an effort is futile. The definition of insanity being what it is... I'm at a point where I need to consider what my other alternatives are.L.L. Brown (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you "knew that someone would" tell you that you are assuming a false parity, then why did you make that argument? This is an encyclopedia. The people working here are the ones writing the encyclopedia, so it would be wise to bring your best game. Muzzy-headed arguments are not going to get anywhere. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "If you "knew that someone would" tell you that you are assuming a false parity, then why did you make that argument?" Yeah, that's because this is about the article and not about how 'someone' was likely to respond. The article is almost completely biased in favor of abortion and in favor of keeping it legal. Anyone looking at the page objectively and scoring the material one point at a time can see that the article is grossly slanted in favor of abortion and that it's more an issue of omission of content than by anything else. (shown by the ban logs and history of reverts) Anything that might be useful by a reader to the opponents of abortion is systematically being kept out.. The portions of the article that are supposed to represent the arguments against abortion are weak at best. And they are further weakened by (Pro-Choice favored) "moral relativity" comments and links tagged onto the end. (i.e. the Discrimination section)Would you allow for me to add a counter argument to the "Arguments in Favor" section within that section? Binksternet? I doubt very much that you would.L.L. Brown  (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)