User talk:MarieWarren

Welcome
 Hello MarieWarren, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

MarieWarren, good luck, and have fun. – Pam  D  17:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Discretionary Sanctions
--v/r - TP 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Complaint at WP:ANI about your abortion-related edits
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston. My statements on union campaigns were posted in order to demonstrate the range of topics that they aim to support. All statements of affiliation of unions can be supported by documentation. I do not, at any time, give a POV on whether the unions' campaigns should be supported or not. I do not give a POV on sex selection abortion. I merely state that they have these campaigns. I hope that you will allow knowledge of what the unions campaign for remain as edits to their wiki pages. Please don't ban me without further discussion on ways forward. MarieWarren (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to avoid editorial comment, eg "courageously". Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed Thanks. I will make the change if you have not already done so. MarieWarren (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please use your account when you edit
Please don't edit war as you did here: and here:  to reinstate your preferred version. And especially, since you have an account, please don't edit the same articles logged out, as that might give an appearance of more support for your version than is actually the case. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. Those reverts may have been conducted by a friend who I have now instructed on how to set up a proper account and I have mentioned a few rules to them too editing. MarieWarren (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please see WP:Minor for a description of "minor edit": it summarises itself as "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor." I have just noticed that you marked all your edits to articles yesterday as minor. They weren't. Please take care not to label any further edits as "minor" unless they really are at the level of removing blank space, correcting incontrovertible typos, etc. Thank you. Pam D  14:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks PamD. Still new to this and I though a single sentence was minor. My mistake. MarieWarren (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To "ping" someone else so that they know they've been mentioned, use ping - ie you could have typed, which produces:  and notifies me.  To mention another user, as in "X said...", you can use  which produces , which has a link to their user page.  To mention another user and link to their talk page and contributions, use  ,  producing this: . It takes a while to find things. But you've got the Welcome message above which includes plenty of useful links.  Pam  D  16:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. MarieWarren (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

POV editing on Abortion Rights (organisation)
I have reverted your edit to Abortion Rights (organisation) because it misrepresented the information to which you refer.

You said "The Abortion Rights contains information on how to perform an abortion. Suggested methods listed include: "a simple operation"; "drugs"; and "pushing objects into the uterus e.g. a stick, rubber tubing, wire, coat hangers"."

The group's web page at http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/methods-of-abortion/ which you cite is headed "Methods of abortion" and under "Safe and unsafe abortion", "Unsafe abortion", it says "Unsafe abortion is performed by untrained people using dangerous methods, which often fail, in unsterile conditions." and lists various methods including coathangers etc. The page is describing unsafe methods of abortion which have been used, not suggesting their use.

I believe that your edit probably falls within the scope of the discretionary sanctions on editing in this subject area, as edits "that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies" and will report it at ANI. Pam D  18:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

At Arbitration Enforcement
Following the advice I was given at WP:ANI, I have raised the matter of your editing on Abortion Rights (organisation) at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because I believe it to come within the scope of the Discretionary Sanctions on Abortion-related topics to which you were alerted above on 9th December 2014. Pam D  23:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
To enforce an arbitration decision and for misrepresenation of sources to push a point of view on the page Abortion Rights (organisation), you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. v/r - TP 23:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * Not to pile it on while you're blocked, but I realized that even after the discussion we had on my talk page about the appropriateness of the edits you had been making to various organizations' articles regarding their "support" for abortion rights, you simply continued to do the same thing. I didn't notice until I saw the block notice above, since I had your talk page in my watchlist. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what I am doing with this mark up code but I will give it a go.

.

If you really sincerely thought that "information on how to perform an abortion" was an accurate description of an account which warns that the methods listed are "unsafe" and can lead to various problems including death, then I doubt that you have the necessary judgement to edit Wikipedia. If that were a one-off event, I would be willing to think that perhaps it was just a thoughtless mistake. However, in light of your history, and all the things that have been written about the problems with your editing, I see it as part of a systematic problem with your editing, where you view adding content which supports your point of view as more important than accuracy and sticking to sources. Your assurance that you will ensure that you "do not edit this organisation again" (presumably meaning the article about that organisation) is, in my opinion, nowhere near sufficient, as you have exhibited the same approach to editing on a numebr of different articles, not just that one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Copied as requested.--v/r - TP 03:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)