User talk:Severa/archive4

I hope you continue to contribute
Severa, hi.

I noticed you talking about leaving Wikipedia, out of frustration with the Abortion page(s). I understand why you'd need some time off, but I hope you don't really leave for good. You've done a lot of good work on a terribly difficult topic, and I and other editors appreciate you much more than we tend to express, when we're all caught up in the fray.

I feel kind of bad that I was so... offline for most of the summer, because I've wanted to help more at WikiProject Abortion, but I just haven't been around. Now I'm back online, with some free time for a change, and eager to pull a bit more weight on those pages. You're more intimately familiar with the current state of things than I am, so it occurred to me to ask you where within that project my help would be most needed, in your opinion.

Take care,

-GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To that effect--I'm newish on Wikipedia (April) but I'll take some work for the WikiProject if you like, particularly watching and reverting vandals/POV sharks. Leave a message on my talk page if you'd like me to do anything. -Umdunno 21:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding! Love to help out. -Umdunno 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Severa, you can't leave! You're the fairest, most patient editor I have ever encountered at Wikipedia, more than meriting a barnstar for your work on the Abortion WProj! You are the founder and spearhead for what has got to be the most difficult of any WikiProject to work on. The battles over accuracy and NPOV are vicious, but you have been a stabilizing force in both respects in more ways than you know. Thank you, and don't you dare leave. --BCSWowbagger 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected Abortion
I am not going to block anyone for 3RR violation at this time, call it an amnesty if you may. I have protected the page instead, please discuss the changes in the talk page instead of reverting each other. Many thanks. --WinHunter (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Curses
Just saw your user page. Life is tough that way, but we'll miss you. Thanks for all you've done. --BCSWowbagger 03:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're leaving
I hope you can come back at some later point in your life. All the best! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance
It is clear you are unaware of what social justice is if you think that the Pro-choice movement would belong in that category.

It also appears that you are unaware of what aboriton is if you think it is only my opinion that it ends a pregnancy. 75.3.3.245 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice movement really isn't involved in any social justice movements. Social justice is protection of basic rights, including life. Pro-choice people don't deny the fact that abortion kills a life. 75.3.3.245 03:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please check out NPOV to understand what we're about. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is probably more accomodating than other encyclopaedias, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have standards like NPOV, RS, and V.
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum of a soapbox. This isn't an appropriate place to discuss which side of an issue is correct or to attempt to promote a point of view. Thus, we're not here to judge whether the pro-choice movement fails the "social justice" test because, in its effort to ensure gender equality for women, it forgets the right to life of the fetus, or whether the pro-life movement isn't up to par because its focus on fetal rights neglects the woman's security of person. It would be POV to imply that either movement isn't concerned with human rights — at least by its own definition.
 * Neutrality is imperative to the success of Wikipedia. We welcome editors of all ideological stripes, but, it is important to keep in mind that NPOV policy means we shouldn't take sides in writing articles. -Severa (!!!) 04:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RussianAbortionPoster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RussianAbortionPoster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Peace Dove Cometh
I finally coaxed the Peace Dove into bringing you an Olive Branch on my behalf! He fooled me by hiding under a .gif --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 07:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Choice
CFFC though is not Catholic, they only claim to be. By Catholic law, however, no one affilated with that organization is Catholic. Many of the members were never Catholic to begin with either. The organization is also funded mainly by non-Christians who just support abortion. The organization is not Christian left, either, being pro-abortion is not a concept of Christianity. It is nowhere supported in any Christian history. Christian left is supposed to be about people that have leftist views based on Christianity, not about people who are Christians, that have leftist views for reasons unrelated to their religion. 75.3.28.188 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that people who are involved with CFFC are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church, meaning that they are no longer Catholics. If a person has their U.S. citizenship revoked and is deported, but they still claim to be a United States citizen, that doesn't mean you have to identify them as a United States citizen. 75.3.28.188 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to my above comment. If someone claims U.S. citizenship but has it revoked and is deported, does wikipedia still classify them as U.S. citizens? 75.3.28.188 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that I know more on this subject than you, so please listen to me. The situation is no different than citizenship. The Catholic Church is an organization, people can not be Catholics if they are not members of the Catholic Church. If the organization kicks them out, then they can no longer honestly identify as Catholics. Please use facts, right now you are basing off your personal view that the Catholic Church can not determine who is a member or not, which is just plain false. 75.3.28.188 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To be a Catholic, a person first must meet qualifications such as baptism. If someone is never baptised in the Catholic Church, then they can never claim to be Catholics. This is just one qualification, though. Besides not being baptised, if someone is excommunicated, then they are not a Catholic. The people affilated with CFFC were excommunicated, meaning they are no longer Catholics. People can not just declare themselves Catholics anymore than a person can declare themselves a member of any organization that they do not belong to. 75.3.28.188 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing warning
The warning I was given does not apply to me. I never made an edit to anyone's comment on my talk page. I edited my own user page. Please remove the warning. Had the comment been made on my talk page and not my user page, I would not have edited it. Doesn't the user get to choose the content of there own page? I could warn you for vandalizing my user page. 75.3.28.188 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't all that important to respond to this. Please respond to my other messages, they are what is important. 75.3.28.188 00:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning, please end POV edits
Your recent edits to the article Religion and abortion contain POV. Please familiarize yourself with Neutral point of view policy. 75.3.28.188 21:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't take sides
Are you kidding? You are taking sides with the CFFC, who clearly have no authority to make the judgment on what are the qualifications for being Catholic. You are ignoring the facts. 75.3.28.188 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to meditate?
I meant to offer IP75 some helpful advice. Things didn't go as planned and multiple rants, largely aimed at you, have been posted to my talkpage. I invite you (or KC) to chastise me as appropriate if I have erred. In the meantime, I consider it best if I don't respond further to the Anon; I have no patience for this foolishness and I had to delete several of my fledging posts because they contained adjectives and phrases best avoided on WP. Good luck, Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you sure can pack a lot into a couple of paragraphs. I'm actually flattered that you'd take the time and effort to make such a thorough, insightful reply. I think I should spend some time just lurking in hot-spots, watching and learning. The link KC posted below is actually a perfect example. Thanks Severa, I really appreciate it. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice
Well reasoned, nice comment. Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Organzied religion is not an ideology
The problem is you are treating an organized religion of members like it is an ideology that anyone can just claim to believe in. A person can claim to be a personalist or a materialist, and they can make this claim without being a member of any associated organization. However, in religion, people can not just claim to be a member of that religion, if they are not. Religious affilation works the same way as national citizenship. 75.3.28.188 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks
Aww, my first barnstar. I sincerely appreciate it. However, I have to point out that you truly are a champion when it comes to WikiProject Abortion. You've been at it for years now. And while we both know things can get heated and tiresome, you always persist. Thanks for the barnstar, and I want you to know that your work is also seriously appreciated.--Andrew c 22:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, you've only been editing WP:Abortion since "June of this year." I believe you.  Hence your WP:Abortion barnstars reaching back to January.  [[Image:Face-wink.svg|20px]]  Really, Andrew already said what needs to be said.  If there's one person who sets the example for everyone else in this WikiProject, to whom others point and say, "Seriously, n00b, you could learn something from him!", it's Severa.  Thank you.  I am truly honored.


 * There are so many people I need to thank for this... my parents, Jimbo, Livingston, Cortana... *audience stops listening* --BCSWowbagger 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * *Get-off-the-stage-you've-been-up-there-long-enough music begins playing softly, but insistently, in the background.* -Severa (!!!) 08:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Christmas
Thanks for your comments and contributions. Hopefully it's a nice change of pace :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Category talk:Pro-life musicians
Let's discuss the appropriateness of the category at its talk page: Category talk:Pro-life musicians. RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 14:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Severa, I've really enjoyed our recent interactions and I've learned a lot from you. I hope that all is well in your RL and that you can return soon. My email is enabled if you ever want to drop me a note. Good luck and best wishes, Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * : ) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back! I had seen you were active again, but didn't want to disturb you unduly. Thanks for your note on my talkpage, it means a lot coming from you. I've been trying to learn by example recently, and I think I'm making some progress. There's certainly room for more improvement, but hey, it's a process : ) Doc  Tropics  16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life commentators
I'm curious about what is going on with this category, which you seem to be in the process of dismantling. Please explain. The Category-for-deletion discussion was about actors and musicians, in particular, not all people "by profession", in general. Political commentators seem to be a quite different case than actors and musicians, whereas abortion is, among other things, a political issue. Though it is not especially related to acting or making music, but it is most surely linked with political commentary. So what's up? -- Lonewolf BC 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Transferred from my own talk page. For sake of coherence, let us keep this discussion here, where it began. Lonewolf BC 06:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC))
 * I had thought that you were an administrator handling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Removing AfD or CfD tags before the AfD or CfD discussion has concluded is generally against policy. The original intent of Category:Pro-life activists and Category:Pro-choice activists was to serve as a place to sort WikiProject Abortion articles relating to individuals whose primary claim to notability was their activism in the abortion movement. It was not intended to be a laundry list of celebrities or misc. personalities who had taken a position in the abortion debate, but, rather than continually having to go through these categories and winnow out inappropriate categorizations, I decided to strike a balance and create new categories. However, these categories were deleted for the reasons stated in the collective CfD; the votes were unanimously in favour of deletion. Category:Pro-life commentators was overlooked by the afforementioned CfD. I am only attempting to amend the error in judgment I made in creating these categories and enforce the consensus against them. Please direct all comments toward this category to the CfD I have made. -Severa (!!!) 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough, for the most part. I somewhat take exception to your first bit, though, in which you seem to blame me for removing the speedy-delete tag "...before the ... CfD discussion has concluded...". In the first place, I did not remove any CfD tag; I removed a speedy-delete tag, and the the speedy-delete tag itself says, "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion ... please remove this notice...". Plainly, the category does not meet the speedy-delete criteria. Further, political commentators are, for reasons I outlined above, rather a different case from actors and musicians, so it surely would not be legitimate to speedy-delete the category for political commentators by simple extension of the outcome of the CfD discussion about actors and musicians. (Actually, I think that it would not be legitimate to extend that outcome in that way even if political commentators were closely alike to actors and musicians in this regard.) Furthermore (as is only normal for a speedy-delete), there was no CfD discussion for the commentators till you created it, 10 minutes after I removed the speedy-delete tag. So you have no cause to complain that I removed the speedy-delete tag, much less to chide me for it, however mildly. But perhaps I have misunderstood you. Anyhow, I see that you have now properly tagged the page and opened the CfD discussion, so that is all okay now. No hard feelings -- at least not on my part, and I hope not on yours, either. -- Lonewolf BC 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Transferred, as before. I'm "watching" this page, so there is no need to split our discussion between our talk pages. Likely this reply will wind in up, anyhow. -- Lonewolf BC 08:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry for being rash. I'm up to my eyeballs in trying to sort out issues with the categorization system at WikiProject Abortion, and, when I thought I was on the path to setting things right, things aren't running as smoothly as I'd hoped.
 * I am not happy that the categories I created were deleted — it means back to more unnecessary, entirely avoidable mopping up for WikiProject Abortion members — but I respect and uphold the consensus of the CfD — a consensus clearly against "categorizing people by opinion." The intended purpose of Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists was to have a place to sort people whose notability mostly involved their abortion-related activism. If a case can be made that such activism constitutes a significant portion of a commentator's political advocacy as a whole, and thus their notability, then they can be sorted into either of these categories. My only intent was to prevent the categories from being watered-down by construing actors who have at some time stated in an interview, "I'm for/against abortion," as being "activists" on par with the leaders of NOW or ALL. I find ideological categorizations to be unencylopaedic, but, if such categorizations are going to occur anyway, I'd rather that consistency be maintained in the system of categorization. As it is, Category:Pro-life commentators is redundant, because all the political commentators formerly listed probably meet the criteria for inclusion in Category:Pro-life activists. -Severa (!!!) 08:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries, and I agree with you about the central problem (people getting put, for slight causes, into categories with which they really have little connection), and sympathise with your wikipedia-hardship. -- Lonewolf BC 08:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Transferred, as before. See reply, below, for explanation. Lonewolf BC)
 * Lonewolf BC, I don't mean to be antagonistic. However, I reply to you on your Talk page because you have broached a question toward me, and it makes sense to reply to you in a place that you're going to see it. You do not get "You have new messages" alerts for other people's Talk pages. I also don't make a habit of placing other people's Talk pages on my watchlist that often, so, I have no way of knowing that you have received my reply unless I post it to your Talk page.
 * (BTW, this is a longshot, but is that "BC" as in "British Columbia?") -Severa (!!!) 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I have this page on "watch", so there is no need to post to me on my talk page, for the purposes of this discussion. (If ever you begin some other discussion with me, by posting to my page, then that would be a different story.) Granted, I don't get new-message alerts that way, but those have no considerable practical advantage over just checking my watchlist from time to time. Actually, WP:Talk mentions, near its bottom, this technique of keeping user-talkpage discussions coherent. I guess I should put a notice such as they recommend, on my talk page, and start putting you-can-answer-on-your-own-page notices when I begin a discussion on someone else's talk page. Anyhow, no big deal. -- Lonewolf BC 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)