User talk:GoWithChrist

Welcome!
  Hello, GoWithChrist!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller  talk 20:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 20:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you’ve been reverted before for using the term pro-life instead of the neutral term anti-abortion and again on articles that don’t use pro-life. Doug Weller  talk 21:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller I must cordially disagree. It's unclear how you believe anti-abortion to be a neutral term.  And, my point is that anti-abortion (we could also call it pro-baby-death?) and pro-life can mean the same thing, but in the article I edited, they mean different things.  If you're referring to the page on the controversial Catholic priest Frank Pavone, he was a pro-life activist long before getting involved in anti-abortion antics. Pro life as demonstrated by sitting bedside and advocating for life of terminally ill patients.  Abortion and the unborn had nothing to do with those cases.  Editors disallowing this title are really not acting in good faith IMO.  The only reason the article doesn't use the term pro-life, is because biased editors keep deleting it.  Several of the article's points discuss quite literally his pro life activity.   GoWithChrist (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We use NPOV (neutral point of view) terms in Wikipedia. "Pro-life" is clearly a POV term, as you have previously been pointed to in the FAQ at Talk:Anti-abortion_movements.  In case you think that's biased, we don't use "pro-choice", either.   Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment @Black Kite, but you did not see the point. In the Frank Pavone article, using the term anti-abortion is not accurate, as it dismisses his pro-life work with people like Baby Alfie and Terry Schiavo, both of whom Pavone advocated for life. These cases have nothing to do with abortion. So allowing him the dual titles of "anti-abortion AND pro-life activist" is correct.  If the article were only about abortion cases, I would totally see your point, and agree that anti-abortion activist is perfect.  GoWithChrist (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How many people facing execution has he argued shouldn't be executed. You can't be pro-life selectively. We're trying to explain this to you to keep you out of trouble.  Doug Weller  talk 08:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller I actually believe he is steadfastly against the death penalty, and yes, you are correct, you are either pro-life, or you aren't. Again, Terry Schiavo and Baby Alfie Evans were not abortions, and Pavone heavily advocated for their right to life and sat bedside with each of them.  These are not about abortion.  The whole Wikipedia stance on the term pro-life is totally political and left-wing biased.  You don't have to try so hard to explain it to me since you don't seem to see that your "explanation" to me (to help me understand) really is arguing the same point I've been making all along. It appears that it is you and the others you include in "we" who don't understand and can't find the logical argument to qualify as strong reasoning.  If Pavone cannot be referred to in both manners for which  he is known, then it's clear that wikipedia is not a free and unbiased platform but yet one more libtarty crybaby platform where we silence voices we don't like, especially when we can't defend our arguments with reason.GoWithChrist (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet we have happy editors who are right wing, anti-abortion, Creationists, you name it. But of course you’re an expert already. And some might say crying because you didn’t get your way. Doug Weller  talk 17:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sticks and stones. And yet, I'm still awaiting a rational, well constructed, argument why the term pro-life is not appropriate for Pavone.  I'm not crying, I'm defending my position with facts and well-thought out, rational arguments which are 100% accurate.  You're complaining and fighting factual information simply because you are probably afraid that if facts were allowed in Wikipedia, it would ruin the whole narrative you're trying to present to the world. GoWithChrist (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

And an important warning
Your editing related to abortion is tendentious and disruptive. Examples are the crude namecalling above ("libtarty", "crybaby") and your trolling and battleground posting at Talk:Frank Pavone, e g Special:Diff/1134245137. Also POV edits at Frank Pavone, e g Special:Diff/1130748666 and Special:Diff/1134241755, with extremely poor sourcing. If you persist in such editing, I will topic ban you from the subject. That would mean you can't edit abortion-related pages at all, so please think about it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your feedback, but I will point out that my discussions and arguments on Wikipedia have NOTHING to do with abortion at all, nor am I trying (nor have I tried) to remove the title of anti-abortion activist from Pavone’s page or any others. My points are that the term pro life, as it pertains to Frank Pavone for specifically the sections about Terry Schiavo and Baby Alfie is appropriate since he is not only an anti-abortion activist (points already there) but a Pro-life activist as well (content I added regarding the Terry Schiavo case, Babie Allie Evans case, etc. Neither of these cases have anything to do with abortions, but rather living people and right to life.  Let me be clear here, I am not advocating and have not attempted to remove the primary title of anti abortion activist, since that is also what he is all about.  But to exclude his pro-life work is wrong and does Wikipedia itself a tremendous discredit.  When the general population learns how things work behind the scenes at Wikipedia, it’ll be just one more source that cannot be trusted since as long as you have enough friends with a like POV to claim “consensus” you can tell any story you want.  It would be a shame to see all this great work in Wikipedia turn into a heap of garbage. But arguments like this - blocking the simple inclusion of saying that he is ALSO a pro-life activist, from his article is a discredit to Wikipedia.  It appears clear that the editors of Wikipedia will only support one point of view, and that is that pro life only has one meaning - people against abortion.  Pavone is also against the death penalty, and it’s all be clearly documented.  So this comment about having “disruptive editing about abortion” is incorrect.  What’s also incorrect is the constant reversion of good edits about the Shiavo case because it doesn’t fit the narrative these editors would like to tell about Pavone, which is to vilify him for his anti-abortion stance. Which is their choice, but the fact that he was and still is a pro-life advocate with several cases of supporting living people in their right-to-life should be included as well if we are all following the rules and presenting verifiable, balanced information.  Thanks, GoWithChrist (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)