User talk:Strider12

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. There is a lot to learn, so here are some links to pages that will help you to navigate through the site, get to know the most important policies and guidelines, and develop your editing skills:
The basics Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia Learn from others Glossary of Wikipedia terminology Questions and answers Frequently Asked Questions Copyright FAQ Where to ask a question Department directory Village pump Editor's Index Why was my page deleted?	The community Community Portal Administrators' noticeboard WikiProjects Maintenance Civility How to use talk pages Resolving disputes Creating articles Starting a new page Naming conventions Manual of Style Cite your sources with footnotes Using categories How to develop an article	Policies and guidelines Notability and Verifiability Copyright violations No original research Neutral Point of View What Wikipedia is not External links Ownership of articles User page guidelines Deletion policy About images Uploading images Copyright tags Image use policy Upload wizard
When you need to ask a question or seek assistance, you can visit pages such as the Help Desk, Editor Assistance or the New Contributors' Help page. They all fulfill different rôles depending on what kind of help you need. If you would like direct access to an experienced editor, you can join the adopt-a-user project or just approach someone directly via their discussion page. Always sign whenever you leave a comment by using four tildes (~~~~) or . Whenever you edit a page, even if the edit is minor, you should include a descriptive edit summary. I hope that you find Wikipedia to be a rewarding experience. – Adrian M. H. 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Have you read WP:TALK? Your edits to Talk:Post-abortion syndrome have not been entirely productive. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battle ground. We should all remember to stay civil and to assume good faith. It is never appropriate to start off a dialog on a talk page by calling editors with whom you disagree "thought police". You should tone down your comments, remember to comment on content, not editors, and to generally be polite and work with the community. If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask. Continued disruption and incivility could get you blocked. So sit back, relax, and remember that wikipedia is a community and we work together here (even with those with whom we disagree). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Thought Police" is rather mild, I thought. Did you bother reading the discussion of anon and others saying they wanted to purge references to peer reviewed studies simply because critics of the Elliot Institute and Reardon accuse them of bias?

To Quote:

In theory, I agree with you. However, the director of the Elliot Institute (David Reardon) is the author of a majority of the "studies" referenced in the wiki article. The question we should probably answer is - should we purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon?--131.216.41.16 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes why not? We can only use reliable, neutral sources here. Of course it might be different when we specifically say "pro-life organizations" or "proponents of PAS" claim that so and so are the symptoms. mirageinred 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Though, I think we will have to be vigilant against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article. --131.216.41.16 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Openly discussing an effort to "purge" information from peer reviewed medical journals because one of the author's is pro-life (and therefore "biased" against the pro-choice POV of the editors) should itself be grounds for blocking these "editors" who are "viligent against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article."

This is clearly censorship intended to control which peer reviewed studies will be presented to readers. And if they can't censor, they want to create a ghetto for studies they want to discredit.

See also Anons absurd edits of David Reardon in which Anon is front loading the biography with attacks on Reardon's associations and continually ignores the points in my discussion -- see "Pro-Life Activist" section which anon has recently broken into a half dozen sections because it got so long.

I've been very civil with Anon over the David Reardon biography, despite some outright weird assertions (like the Elliot Institute has no buildings) but when I see Anon and miraginred openly discussing the purging of dozens of peer reviewed articles relevent to the subject post-abortion syndrome it is really frustrating to see how ideologues can destroy the purpose of Wikipedia.Strider12 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Hello. I've removed the NPOV tag from post-abortion syndrome for now. The tag is a last resort to be placed after good-faith efforts to address NPOV concerns on the article talk page have reached an impasse. I've not seen such a good-faith effort thus far on your part, and I'd encourage you to address your concerns specifically and civilly on the article talk page before tagging the article. I won't repeat the warning to focus on content rather than contributors and avoid personal attacks - as you've removed the prior warnings from your talk page, I'll assume you've read the relevant policies. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring and 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Reardon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. MastCell ^Talk 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior

OK, maybe I've been beating around the bush too much, so I'm going to be direct. You continually refer to edits you dislike as efforts to "purge" the encyclopedia of valuable information for ideological reasons. Recently, you have taken to capitalizing the word "PURGE" in many of your edit summaries and talk page comments. Please discuss content issues civilly, and refrain from shouting in all caps, from attacking other editors, and from imputing malicious motivations to editors with whom you disagree. If you continue to be unable to comport yourself in an acceptable manner, I will ask for outside review of your conduct. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your invitation

Thank you for thinking of me. I'll think it over for a few days before deciding but it doesn't seem to me that too much is broken in the article. It's just got a bit strange in the intro. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having thought it over, it's thanks but no thanks. I've got way too much on my plate to provide the intensive involvement that this will probably require and I'm not particularly interested in the subject matter. If it was a quick in and out, I'd do it but the augurs suggest a less auspicious outcome. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

As much as I appreciate and agree with absolutely every word you are saying (you are correct, people are happy to scream that Wikipedia is not censored except for where it might hurt someone's feelings - i.e., abortion): this is canvassing and explicitly not allowed by policy. Please take care not to do it in the future. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)