User talk:Yonmei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Re:Nominating pages for deletion 3 Userfied 4 75.3.23.157's comments 4.1 Mistake 4.2 Breaking Wikipedia's Policy 4.3 Cardinal Egan 4.4 Moore Catholic High School 4.5 Activism 4.6 Daley edits 5 The "work" of Dralobv 6 Talk:Terry Lloyd 7 "Welcoming Congregation" restructuring 8 you need to leave Homophobia alone for 24 hours ... 9 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great 10 You are mistaken 11 A bit quick to delete 12 Arabic names 13 Homophobia 14 Homophobic Homophobia 15 A Barnstar for you 16 66 17 Homophobia 18 good edit 19 Homophobia 20 re: pro life 21 Remember When 22 Edits to LiveJournal 23 Harlan Ellison 24 AfD nomination of List of Ellen guest stars 25 just in case you stop by and feel like revisiting Bisexual erasure again . . . 26 My personal views 27 CHEER UP

[edit] Welcome

Hello Yonmei, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Fabricationary 21:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Re:Nominating pages for deletion

Hi Yonmei, thanks for your message on my talk page! I looked up the page you referred to, Leah Luv, and I saw that you placed a "prod" tag on the page which an anonymous user removed. A "prod" tag can be placed on a page only once, when you think it should be deleted and don't think that anyone would disagree. Since someone disagreed (the anonymous user when he or she removed the tag), the next step to try to get the page deleted is to nominate and list it at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. This link will take you to a page listing three things you have to do to first tag the page for deletion, create a deletion page where other users can give their opinions on whether or not they agree with the deletion, and add the deletion page to the list of proposed deletions for today.

Based on looking at Leah Luv, I think an AFD (article for deletion) might not work - there is a proposed Wikipedia policy on the notability of porn actors, located here: Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). (Also, all biographical pages must meet the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people).) One of the guidelines for notability is that the actor must have at least 100 movies to his or her credit. According to Leah Luv's IMDB.com page, she has been in 98 movies since 2003, though I don't know if they are heterosexual or homosexual porn. Also searching for her name in quotes on Google yields 386,000 hits, though I don't know how many are relevant (all those on the first page are). In light of those things, it could be argued that she does meet Wikipedia's notability standards.

Please let me know if you have any more questions or need any more help :). Fabricationary 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fabricationary (or may I call you Fab!) that's extremely helpful, both in the particular (this Leah Luv page) and in general. I did look at the specs for "non-notable porn stars" but I missed the "100 movies" requirement. 98 is close enough for tap-dancing. ;-)

Yonmei 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userfied

User:Yonmei/Pride in Aberdeen, please tag for speedy when you're done with it. Guy 22:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, will do. Assumed when I saw "new messages" that it was just another repeat of the comments from this anonymous vandalizer who's been bugging me all evening. Glad it's not: thanks very much for your help. Yonmei 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 75.3.23.157's comments

[edit] Mistake

You are making a mistake about the father. 75.3.23.157 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No - I am cleaning up a biographical article that has had verified information about the subject removed. Let's continue this discussion on the Talk page where it belongs. Yonmei 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no verified information on the subject, he never said he was gay. 75.3.23.157 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some verified information on the subject Yonmei 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That is an unreliable source. No one's name is attached to it. 75.3.23.157 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some more verified information on the subject Yonmei 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to turn rumors into facts. If this was for any other issues for any other person, then the information would not be included. The only reason it is acceptable in the article is because of anti-Catholicism.

Many people have made many conspiracy theories, none of which are accepted as fact on wikipedia.

You might have a leg to stand on if you were consistent, but your edits are purely anti-Catholic. 75.3.23.157 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not anti-Catholic, and you have already been asked today by User:Lordkazan to refrain from personal attacks. Yonmei 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it then you allow for the unproven attacks to stay in the article? 75.3.23.157 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are allowing your own POV to colour your opinion. To say that a man is gay is not an "attack", and it is a verified fact that Father Judge was gay.Yonmei 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You explanation, 3 people he knew said he was gay, and a few anti-Catholic groups have also said he was gay. 75.3.23.157 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not cited any anti-Catholic groups. Please refrain from personal attacks and slurs - I have already asked you this twice.Yonmei 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, people that have worked with Chris Kattan on saturday night live have said he is gay. Yet Chris Kattan is not in any category identifying him as a homosexual? Why is that? Just because there aren't any hate groups that say he is a homosexual? If I created a website, didn't put my name on it, but declared on it that Chris Kattan was gay, then would he meet the qualifications to be in a gay category? 75.3.23.157 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have never edited an article about Chris Kattan, nor am I even sure who he is (nor do I care, sorry) this comment is irrelevant. Please stick to topic, and refrain from incivility. Yonmei 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard of Bill Clinton? Why don't you add him to a gay category? Ann Coulter said he was a homosexual. 75.3.23.157 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe you have anything useful to add to this discussion. Please do not edit my Talk page with any further comments with regard to this issue. Yonmei 21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking Wikipedia's Policy

It is against wikipedia's policy to just blank comments from your talk page. You should have your talk page archieved. 75.3.23.157 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please put all of the comments you have removed back in and I won't have to report you to an adminstrator. 75.3.23.157 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my behavior, please do take it up with an administrator. Yonmei 22:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinal Egan

Do you know when that link was added in and by who? I am guessing you don't or you wouldn't keep putting it back. We can't just add any random stuff to an article. There needs to be a reason for something to be included. The original editor who put that in did not give a reason nor have you. One article about a man is not notable. There are many articles about the Cardinal, they are all not included. It is wikipedia's policy that not every article about a person is notable. That one article is not notable. 75.3.23.157 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't just remove any random stuff from an article.

Nor should you have used Bill Clinton as a sandbox, which I take it the addition of an article by Ann Coulter was intended to be. Yonmei 22:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter's claims are no different than that one priests claims. 75.3.23.157 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this an acknowledgement by you that in adding the link to that article by Ann Coulter to the Bill Clinton page, you were deliberately doing something you believe to be wrong? Yonmei 07:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moore Catholic High School

If you noticed, I removed content from Moore Catholic High School, why haven't you put that back in? 75.3.23.157 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As another editor has already pointed out to you: WP:POINT. Don't edit a page to "make a point". Yonmei 08:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't act like you know anything, it's clear you are new to wikipedia or you would be responding on my talk page, not your own, or you would leave a message on my page that you responded on my talk page and also leave a message on your talk page stating this is where you would respond. 75.3.23.157 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC

Since it's evident you're reading my Talk page with much more attention than you give your own, why should I give myself the trouble of going over to yours unless I have something to say to you that the administrators ought to read? Yonmei 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activism

Reading the article, I am not persuaded that his activities vis-a-vis gay life would fall under the rubric of "activism." I think that both in the name of accuracy as well as consensus-building with other editors we should consider it sufficient that his orientation is openly discussed, and he is listed under the present categories. Regards, Haiduc 10:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't all start with the same baggage. Haiduc 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yonmei, you have no proof that he was an activist. You only have ignorant beliefs that if a person is gay, then they must be a gay activist. This is not true. Yonmei, your hateful nature shines through in every message. 75.3.23.157 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I have added a note to your report on the WP:PAIN page. Yonmei 17:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daley edits

(Titled by "75.3.23.157" Try to be reasonable)

You are not familar with what you are trying to edit now. For instance, the Stroger Crisis had nothing to do with Daley. He had no involvement, he just made one comment on it, that is not enough though to make a whole section about in his encyclopedia entry. That situation is related to John Stroger, not Richard M. Daley. Most of those sections were put in by an anon. user and they are highly biased. Some of them were small news stories, some of which were unrelated to the man the article is about. They also contain highly POV phrasing. Some of the news that might be worthy of mentioning, but are not worthy of an entire section dedicated to it. They would just belong as sentences in the current events section, but a lot of that information added is unrelated to the man the topic about. It is related to Chicago politics, but not directly related to the mayor. I am asking you to be reasonable on this and not allow a wikipedia article's quality to be sacrificed because you have a personal grudge against me. I hope you can respond back to this and be reasonable, not confrontational. 75.3.23.157 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "work" of Dralobv

- - Yes, all of his "contributions" have been erased, but not just by me. I think I will send a thank you to Deleuze. I'm glad to hear that you have Important Work--my brain is apparently too small. :-)MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Terry Lloyd

Hi Yonmeni - thanks for the prompt - missed sig off by mistake - Sorted now. Taken your request about this out now - hope that's OK. Cheers, --Leigh 13:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Welcoming Congregation" restructuring

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 07:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you need to leave Homophobia alone for 24 hours ...

... lest you violate WP:3RR. this is a warning. i'll report the violation if you do it. r b-j 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3RR warning: appreciated. Of course, you are also at the 3RR limit for Homophobia for the next 24 hours, as is CC80. It will doubtless do us all good to leave it be for a day. Yonmei 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

actually i have 1 revert for the day on that article. an edit does not necessarily mean a revert. BTW, you can respond here, i'll watch your talk page. i think that is the normal Wiki protocol. r b-j 00:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great

You are receiving this notice because you have recently commented on Talk:Alexander the Great. You may be interested in the mediation case located here. It is my hope that mediation will help solve the debate, but you are welcome to participate or not participate as you choose. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are mistaken

I have not been removing material from the homophobia article. All I have been doing is ADDING comments to the discussion page.

This comment was made on 10:20, 3 November 2006 by Rglong, who for some reason seems to forget to sign/date his comments quite a lot (and who did, in fact, accidentally blank quite large chunks of Talk:Homophobia, evidently without even noticing that he'd done it).

[edit] A bit quick to delete

is it against policy to put an essay published about this author such as the crtic on orson scott card which, unless im mistaken, you deleted?

if not then leave it and let a discussion be brought to the subject so that the conclusions, which are relevant, can be debated and used by everyone to help illuminate OSC's political views.

This comment was made by 82.255.139.101, at 22:36, 4 November 2006. For some reason, this user didn't think to sign and date their comment.

Yes, it is against wikipedia policy (and illegal) to post copyrighted material on Wikipedia. You will see a summary of wikipedia policy on this issue below every editing window on Wikipedia. It reads: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted."

Please sign and date your comments in future. Yonmei 23:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic names

I now think it was a mistake to pipe the names in the categories Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, and Guantanamo Bay detainees. Most of those names are Arabic names. And they don't follow the convention we have in most European names. It makes sense to order European names on the last name, or surname, because it is inherited by children.

IMO, it doesn't make sense for Arabic names. They don't have a "surname" the way we understand it. Their names works more like old Norse names, or names in Iceland. Consider Nasrat Khan's son Hiztullah Nasrat Yar. Khan's "first name" becomes Hiztullah's "last name". Kind of like "Eric the Red" and his son, "Lief Ericson". So, IMO, it doesn't make sense to sort on last name. I noted this in the new Guantanamo categories I created.

Does this make sense to you?

You recently piped some of the articles you added to these new categories. If you don't agree with me, can we discuss this further, before you sort more articles on the person's last name?

Thanks!

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I have seen a couple of people make this mistake. You put your reply on User:Geo Swan, not User Talk:Geo Swan. You probably know this. Additions to a contributor's User Talk page cause the wikipedia to give you a heads-up. But contributions to their User page doesn't.

I was wondering why I hadn't seen a reply from you. And now I think you were probably wondering why I wasn't reply.from me.

Oh well. I am going to move your comment to my talk page, and respond there.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That fellow who has studied Arabic did offer his opinion on the optimal sort orders for Arabic names.

But, like I said, trying to put those names into a last-name, first-name order is a temptation that is going to continue to occur over and over again, because people will follow the examples of organizations like the DoD and the Washington Post.  :-) -- Geo Swan 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia

Just so you know, from a third perspective (mine) it doesn't really seem like RBJ is attacking you at this article. Can you be more specific as to what statement you're actually talking about? CaveatLector^Talk 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw this and felt exhausted at the thought of providing you with every damn example of where RBJ is trying to turn this into a personal attack on me rather than discussing the issue, but RBJ just did it for me - and still seems to think that none of this constitutes a personal attack. Yonmei 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yonmei - thank you for your message. I'm here to add in my two cents. I don't feel qualified to comment on the different opinions on the wording of the Homophobia page, but from what I've seen on the article's talk page, your talk page, RBJ's talk page, and the mediation page, I'd say you've done a great job at staying calm and polite, and refraining from personal attacks. RBJ seems like a very intelligent guy (that stuff about electrical engineering on his talk page went way over my head) but has been blocked several times for 3RR violations. Both he and you seem interested and perhaps personally invested in the topic of homophobia/LBGT rights, and it's to be expected when two such people meet, especially online, that there'll be some disagreements. I don't know how this issue started, but in its current state, I'd advise you to continue to be courteous and perhaps stop using those templates about personal attacks. If I were RBJ and I got those posted on my talk page or on other Wikipedia pages, no matter my intentions, I could see how I could be a bit put off if someone kept implying that I was making personal attacks and informing me of the consequences. Both you and RBJ have been here a while, so I'm confident that you two know the ropes, whereas the best use for the personal attack template (in my opinion) is for a new user who may, perhaps out of inexperience with internet socializing in general, be a bit too brash towards others. However, I don't find anything objectionable about how you've handled the situation so far, but please remember that while your passion and effort to share your knowledge here is noble, there comes a point where you have to detach yourself and your investment from a page that anyone in the world can edit (though not now since the page is protected, hehe). It's tempting to always put in the last word, but your previous words and actions here are readily available, unalterable, and will make a stronger statement for your case than repeated iterations. I hope mediation goes well and the situation improves. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Fabricationary 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobic Homophobia

Sorry to be talking about this subject, which I suspect you might be starting to get sick of, but I've been looking at it, reading the talk page, and would like to make a contribution, but don't feel entirely qualified until I know exactly what the homophobic elements of the article are. I (think) I can see what you mean in the ""Homophobia" as applied to political figures" section, but might have missed some, and you seem qualified to know. Cheers =) Gekedo 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar for you

A LGBT Barnstar (currently under proposal) is hereby awarded to Yonmei for his/her tireless efforts to combat homophobia on the pages of Wikipedia, particularly on the homophobia article page itself. Keep up the good work. Wikipedia needs more members like you. Jeffpw 08:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• And here's a tag you might find useful:

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Jeffpw 12:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"His" ... hee-hee. That's quite an assumption about someone who hasn't (afaik) identified gender @ wiki. --LQ 12:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oops and damn! Where's that damn OOPS userbox when you need one!?! I just checked out your userpage and saw the Feminist userbox....and what's worse is that *I* had a "non-sexist prose" userbox on my page 'til I blanked the page. Thank you for accepting this award in the spirit it was intended.

yours in chagrin,

Jeff

[edit] 66

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sixty_Six - He has a pretty long history if your interested. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia

I have alot of things I do here on Wikipedia. I have already suggested a compromise for the definition What other issues are there? -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good edit

I saw you took that paragraph off of Homophobia. I figured I would say "good job" on that. I agree that death threats of this type are rare. Peace. See also: wikipedia:wikilove MPS 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia

I'm going to suggest that you take the case to WP:MEDCOM. This issue seems pretty heated. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: pro life

Um hello, I have not gone on to many talk pages and I don't know what the etiquette is but you gave some points of view on the talk page for pro life and I just wanted to ask what your opinion is on when the fetus becomes human, I just don't fully understand the pro choice POV very well at all, you seem like an intelligent person with well thought out arguments and I don't get many of those in my day to day life. It seems that both sides of the issue are focusing to much on emotion by far, one side states that their protecting woman's rights and the fetus is a thing like an organ and the other side screams murderer. Neither side makes their argument particularly well, instead relying on politics, whether it be the politics of feminism or the politics of religion. I would just like some clarification on when you feel human life starts?. It seems to me, speaking strictly from a POV that life has to start from conception, if the fetus is constantly growing and becoming fully human it has to be alive doesn't it?, and if we accept the premise it does then how can it not be human?. I apologise if I bothered you or if I'm stepping on toes, I just honestly would like to know what the pro choice position is (I ralize its on the pro choice page but I would really like a layman's explanation of when life begins) I admit freely I am pro life and Catholic but I am Pro life on purely secular humanist and medical grounds. It just seems to me that science is pretty on side with the concept that a fetus is a seperate person (different fingerprints, DNA, development of its own heart and lungs) as an aside I would say that I was born at twenty seven weeks in 1981 and so know that full gestation is not required. If I bother you please tell me so, I really don't mean to bug and I just want to understand the issue better, I find that the pro choice articles NPOV makes it difficult, This is of course the best policy but I find that after forming an opinion that is by its nature a POV it is difficult to understand the other side with a NPOV, I am more looking for a pro choice POV explained as a regular person understands it, rather than a generalized political POV explained in an NPOV manner. I should also say I would never consider editing any of the abortion related topics due to the fact that I have a clear bias. I am sorry again for bothering you and the length of this addition.Colin 8 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pro-choice because I consider that women are human beings, with full human rights, which ought not be removed because a woman is pregnant. That is, at no point in a woman's pregnancy do I believe that she ought to have the right to make decisions about her own body removed from her.

I know some pro-lifers then argue that a pregnant woman does not have the right to make decisions about the life of the fetus. But this is effectively an argument that someone other than the pregnant woman ought to have a right to make decisions about her body: because it is not possible to make decisions about the welfare of a human fetus that do not involve making decisions about a woman's body.

The argument about exactly when a fetus "becomes human" is, I believe, a red herring. When making the case for being pro-choice on ethical or moral grounds, I stick to the point that the pregnant woman is human, not an incubator, and that removing her right to decide whether to terminate or continue her pregnancy is to treat her as an incubator, not a human being.

Pregnancy is an activity that requires immense effort and energy from most women. (Women who assert otherwise are in general in good health, not required to do manual labour during their pregnancy, and receiving adequate nourishment and nutrients for their pregnancy: they are not aware of the effort it entails because everything is made relatively easy for them.) The hormonal changes in pregnancy can cause some women extreme mental distress: the physical demands of pregnancy can cause some women temporary or permanent physical harm, or even kill. To argue that women ought to be forced through pregnancy regardless of mental or physical damage is an extreme violation of human rights.

The argument that fetuses ought to be protected seems stronger on the face of it, but if you remember that women are human beings, and not incubators or slaves, it's only sensible to accept that you cannot protect fetuses by harming pregnant women - and pragmatically, any nation that passes anti-choice legislation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to decide to have an abortion, will see an immense rise in the maternal morbidity rate, as well as (of course) an increase in women dying or being made sterile in illegal abortions.

A woman who does not want to be pregnant will seek out an abortion. (The abortion rate in the US did not change either up or down when abortion became legal in 1973.) The only choice the legislature can make is to ensure that a woman who wants an abortion can have one safely, legally, and as early as possible - or to ensure that women who want abortions will be compelled to have abortions more unsafely and more likely to be later in pregnancy, which raises the possibility (if the abortion occurs after the 15th week) that the fetus might be able to feel pain (prior to the 15th week of development, this is a physical impossibility).

In summary, I am pro-choice not because of any belief I have about when a fetus becomes human, but because I believe that a woman is human, pregnant or not. I am pro-choice because I believe all human beings have the right to decide for themselves about what they will do with their own bodies: I do not support forced blood transfusion, forced organ transfer, or forced pregnancy. People own their own bodies. They do not own anyone else's. Only a woman can decide what she will do when she becomes pregnant.

I hope this helps you understand the pro-choice position. Other people identifying as pro-choice might answer differently, of course: I don't pretend to be an ultimate authority. Yonmei 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the reply I just wanted to thank you for the response to my question. I have to say that well my view hasn't intrinsicly changed your response did give me a lot to think about. Your point about woman not being human incubators is well taken, I certainly have little desire to take away anybody's freedom. On a practical level your point about how the number of abortions has not increased since roe vs wade is enlightening as it seems to me that from a pro-life point of view it is clearly better for the same number of woman to have a safe clinical abortion than a back alley abortion. The one point I have to make is that from a personal perspective the point when seperate life begins is not a red herring, it is a central issue that I honestly feel needs to be resolved one way or the other. If there has not been an increase in the number of abortions in the countries which allow abortions then from a practical level there is no real problem, since the entire reason I am pro-life is because I wan't to protect life and lessen suffering. I think that the number of woman who suffer real emotional distress after getting an abortion is substantial, though to say its a majority or even a large minority would be arguable as I just don't know. But from a purely moral perspective I think that the question of life is a real problem. From either side of the fence it seems that it would be useful to know one way or the other, is a fetus seperate life from conception or from birth? (I do not think the view that life suddenly appears at some indeterminate point is science, though if I am wrong correct me). If we knew that it was not seperate life it would end the philisophical debate completely, if we could determine that the fetus was a seperate human being from conception abortion may be still be needed because of practical considerations (it is clearly better for woman to recieve competent medical care from a doctor than to subject themselves to terrible techniques of varied skill by a tradesperson, for lack of a better word). There are also other problems, I cannot say for sure, but it seems common sense to me that the number of woman pressured into an abortion would be much higher with it being a legal, clinical procedure than illegal and unsafe as it was. My point is this, if it was possible to prove that seperate, independent life began at conception, then would it not be immoral to take said life?. Also, your point about pain beginning at fifteen weeks raises some questions. is it moral to abort a fetus after that point?. Are partial birth abortions ethical?. And the question of the constant improvements in premature care, babies have been born as early as just less than five months, is it ethical to abort something that could survive by itself outside the womb?. Its clear that if there is a choice between thirty thousand abortions performed in either a hospital or in some persons apartment its no choice at all to an ethical person. Anyway I thank you for your reply, I asked for a rational, intelligent response to my questions and got one. You are the first person to change my view on whether abortion should be outlawed, (though I never believed either the woman or doctors should be criminalized). Or if it may be a sad necessity. I honestly just want to understand the issues better and my only concern is reducing suffering overall. I would like to think that the questions I have raised are not without merit and hope I gave a good account of a reasonable pro-life viewpoint. Thank you very much for replying, if you ever feel like weighing in again I would be pleased to hear from you but please don't feel obligated, especially if I bother you with my prattle. I would also like to say that I understand your reasons for leaving wikipedia but I hope you reconsider. Wikipedia is grossly imperfect, but it could be so much better, it needs editors like yourself. Thank you again.74.120.34.172 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC) that was me, I forgot to sign inColin 8 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin, thanks for your response. Two points:

First, it is generally accepted by researchers that so-called post-abortion syndrome is a myth: and there is no reliable evidence suggesting that women generally suffer distress after deciding to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. (Obviously some women do suffer distress: and some women seem to focus their distress at life circumstances that forced them to decide to terminate on the abortion itself. But it is not a widespread reaction, and certainly not a medically recognised syndrome. Whereas the mental and physical distress that some women suffer because of an unwanted pregnancy is definite and well-documented.)

Second, the issue of fetal rights. My point here is the one I made above: even if you wish to grant a fetus all the rights of a human being, that still would not make it ethical to force a woman to carry a fetus against her will. If you have a healthy nine pints of blood and could donate a pint to save the life of someone dying, would that make it ethical for the law to force you to submit to having a pint of blood removed against your will? It would not: and neither does it make it ethical to force a woman to use her bodily resources against her will.

Finally, late-term abortions (21+ weeks) are rare and difficult to obtain (about 1% of all abortions are carried out after 21 weeks). As far as any data has ever shown, all late-term abortions are carried out from medical necessity, either because the woman's health requires it or because the fetus is, in the woman's judgement, too handicapped to be born. It seems to me extremely inappropriate to make any other legislation for late-term abortions other than "Only if medically necessary: the pregnant woman and her physician are the best judges of what is medically necessary in each individual case." Between 15 weeks (when it is theoretically possible that a fetus can begin to feel pain) and 24 weeks (at which time it is possible that a healthy fetus could survive outside the uterus) I think abortion ought only be carried out if necessary - but that the woman concerned and her physician are still the best judges of whether or not an abortion is necessary. After 24 weeks, I think (and I don't know a single country in the world in which this is not supported by regulation) that abortion can only be carried out if the fetus is either dead or not going to survive birth - in which case it would be pure cruelty to the woman to force her to face months of pregnancy knowing that she will not have a living child at the end of it.

Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term. When a late-term abortion is carried out, I am certainly opposed to any attempt to regulate on moral grounds what techniques can or can't be used in each instance. Medical ethics should prevail: the woman's health comes first. You will find more information about this at Intact dilation and extraction, which discusses late-term abortion techniques.

Okay, one final point: I know several people who would prefer to identify as pro-life, but who accept that in order to reduce human suffering and save lives, it is necessary that abortion should be legally and easily accessible to all women as early in an unwanted pregnancy as possible. Certainly any country which makes abortion illegal or hard to obtain always sees a rise in maternal morbidity as women who ought to have abortions for their own health cannot access them, and women who simply do not want to be pregnant access illegal abortions - which are always available, regardless of regulation, but are seldom as safe as legal abortions. Yonmei 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remember When

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Remember When, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Paul^C/_T+ 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably even six months ago I would have contested the deletion of Remember When, but I don't think I'll bother: it's a notable project in the UK, and certainly in Scotland, but there's no way it would be considered notable by Americans, and I have learned the hard way that Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia. Yonmei 12:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. If you think the article can satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web) (if it is notable within the whole of those countries, that second point under criteria should be easy to satisfy) then you should remove the prod (which is all you need to do to nullify the proposal). To be honest I don't know the first thing about the article, but when I read it there was nothing there that jumped at me saying it was important other than the fact it is five years old. The problem is that the article doesn't assert why it is important and since it is that old it shouldn't be hard to provide some more context to the article. If you contribute to the article and show why it is notable, it won't get deleted. Paul^C/_T+ 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be rude. I tried what you suggest for Pride in Aberdeen, and the page got deleted anyway: a bunch of Americans debated whether it was notable, decided that it wasn't, and voted to delete. Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia: and it is not worth non-Americans breaking their hearts trying to convince Americans to let it be anything else. Yonmei 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being rude, I'm just surprised (and a little offended by your prejudiced view of American Wikipedia editors). Besides, I don't want a notable article to be deleted. The fact of the matter is there isn't enough information in the article to say one way or the other. You suggest that you have this information and refuse to add it to the article and are at the same time complaining about it being put up for deletion. I've added additional comments to the talk page of the article.Paul^C/_T+ 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were being rude. And now you are being silly yourself. I figured out that Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia based on the evidence, not on "prejudice": I began editing Wikipedia rather naively assuming that it was indeed an international encyclopedia, but discovered over several months that it isn't, and never can be. I don't think it's worthwhile for non-Americans to put too much effort into editing an American encyclopedia, and especially not articles about topics which are non-notable from a US POV and which will therefore be deleted sooner or later. Yonmei 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your opinion about my being rude, but you are welcome to it. I didn't mean to come across that way. Every Wikipedia article, whether American-based or not, needs to establish some standard of notability. There has to be some rationale in every article stating why the article is included in Wikipedia. The current text of the Remember When article, "Remember When is a community and oral history project founded in 2003 to record the histories of Edinburgh's LGBT communities." does not even begin to attempt to do this. It is very disingenuous and self-defeating for you to ignore this guideline. If you are interested in improving Wikipedia and you know that this article is notable (from any POV, American or not), I (an American...) will help to support your case if it is ever put up for deletion. If the article is not notable (which you have not even attempted to show), then you shouldn't complain about it being put up for deletion. Improve Wikipedia, don't just complain about it. If you feel there is something wrong, do something other than just complaining about Americans not understanding topics that are non-notable from a US POV. And it is prejudiced of you to just assume that I wouldn't be interested in keeping the article if it is notable in the UK or Scotland but not from a US POV. Paul^C/_T+ 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The working standard for "notability" in wikipedia is "Is it going to appear notable to Americans?" This is because the majority of editors on Wikipedia are Americans. If a wikipage appears non-notable to Americans, it will eventually be deleted. This is not "prejudice", it is direct experience. I can't think of any reason why Remember When would appear notable to American editors: it was a notable project in Scotland/the UK only. And so I see no reason to put any effort into editing a page that will be deleted no matter what I do. Yonmei 10:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a different direction with this. Do you think the current article shows notability to Scottish/British editors? If so, can you please show me where it is in the article? If it doesn't and you don't see the value in adding it to the article, then you are making a disingenuous argument. Essentially what you are saying is you don't see value in spending any time on "non-notable" subjects [for Americans] and yet are upset when poor articles you think deserve to stay in Wikipedia but do not meet standards are put up for deletion. I don't think it is fair at all to get upset over this as long as the article isn't meeting basic standards. If there was an argument for notability on the page and we were discussing the merits of that, this would be a completely different discussion. Paul^C/_T+ 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Paul, I'm not upset by an individual article that is not-notable to Americans being put up for deletion: that's what I now expect to happen to articles that are not-notable to Americans. That's why I have no intention of wasting any further time on editing it. You appear to be upset by this statement of my intentions, and are - perhaps? - projecting your feeling of upset on to me. Yonmei 23:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to LiveJournal

I'm not certain that the sources you are citing meet WP's criteria for reliable, verifiable sources. This is why the section keeps getting removed. It definately does not meet the criteria for WP's original research standards, which is no original research. These protests need to be reported upon in a reliable, verifiable (non-self published) source and even then, the protest may not meet the standards of inclusion based on undue weight. Two confirmed purged journals out of 1.4 million does not seem to meet the standards for inclusion. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan Ellison

Hello, I noticed that you reinserted the section "Self-incriminating account of sexual assault in 1962" in the Harlan Ellison article. I don't want to start a huge edit war over this, but I think it would be appropriate to discuss it on the talk page first. There seems to be general editorial consensus that this story is apocryphal and you state yourself on the talk page "...that the anecdote reads like a misogynistic fantasy that Ellison probably dreamed up..." I think most editors agree that this doesn't belong in the controversy section. If you still think it deserves a place in the article, please feel free to discuss it on the talk page.

By the way, I agree with you 100% that the Connie Willis fiasco belongs in the controversy section. This incident absolutely took place and caused a legitimate stir, forcing Ellison to make a comment. I'm sure some other editors will disagree with the wording, especially the sexual assault bit that seems to get everyone all riled up. I'll help you keep it in there though, as this event is a verifiable controversy. Sbacle 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Ellen guest stars

List of Ellen guest stars, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Ellen guest stars satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ellen guest stars and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Ellen guest stars during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] just in case you stop by and feel like revisiting Bisexual erasure again . . .

While assuming nothing but good faith on the part of the editor who merged the articles, due to the history of as well as lively and vigorous discussion about this article, I have restored the article and substituted instead two merger discussion boxes, one on Bisexual erasure and one on Biphobia.

I look forward to discussing and working on this and other subjects with you in the future. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My personal views

I feel like I've consciously tried to avoid bringing my "personal views" into the discussion. All I've tried to do is figure out whether or not such an inflammatory word should be used in a BLP, in lieu of simply pointing out what his views on the matter are (which I don't agree with, for what it's worth), and letting the reader decide whether these views constitute homophobia. If pressed, I would say they do. But as you've accurately, and eloquently, pointed out, what I think about the matter, doesn't matter. It's only what should be in the article that matters. I fully understand that real people edit this project, and are the subject of the articles in this project. Arguing against inclusion of an inflammatory descriptor does not mean that I do not think that said descriptor is wrong, as you seem to imply. As I said above, if pressed, I would say the descriptor applies.

As for RedSpruce, it's not being called "homophobic" that angers me as much as it is the fact that he won't even retract the statement, nor offer anything resembling a true apology. It has led me to reveal more about my views regarding homosexuality at that talkpage than I have at any point during the discussion, and has put me at some risk in real life, since I'm a teacher in a conservative Southern school district. And yet he refuses to acknowledge any real error in judgement on his part. That is what angers me.Bellwether ^B_C 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Check his responses to your note (including a dummy edit with an edit summary of "boo hoo"). Still think he's the "bigger person"? And how could you make that comment, given the way the discussion has gone thus far? I have not once made this personal. And he's the "bigger person"? Bellwether ^B_C 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't know RS before this discussion. From my perspective, there were no "infights" until he grossly insulted me. And now that you've called him a "better person" than I am, I'd appreciate understanding more fully how you came to that conclusion. Bellwether ^B_C 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CHEER UP

I no this well random but was bored so was just snooping around on peoples pages and found yours and started reading =) (lol) dont worry you do meet some prats on this site that want it all their way but just ignore them!!!

just thought that i say a friendly word or 2; CHEER UP Tbharding (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)