Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 23 January 2008

User page and other things

Sorry for disrupting your version of article again. Please take your time to read Misplaced Pages:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, which discourages "material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" on user pages. There is one exception, however, which is dispute resolution, which is always welcome. Quite frankly, I am not too pleased to be quoted as an example of "editors openly advocating the purging of material from peer reviewed journals simply because abortion proponents have accused the authors of bias" or your referring to editors as "high school students or Planned Parenthood interns."

I have not quoted you as an example of anything other than what you wrote, which was to encourage 131.216.41.16 to purge verifable material. If you regret that, why not declare the past efforts to exclude material an error and start supporting the inclusion of all peer reviewed material so we can COLLABORATE in creating an article that is as complete as possible?

Also keep in mind that this is not your place to indefinitely archive your preferred version. I place emphasis on "indefinitely" because you are always welcome to experiment or make changes for future. However, if you keep it there for too long, it may be subject to deletion. миражinred 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) AKA: Saranghae honey, mirageinred

I believe I am free to work with others on this page. As it is a work in progress, it is not an archive. Thanks for stalking me.--Strider12 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You have said earlier "mirageinred and 131.216.41.16 have openly talked on this page about 'purging.'" And it seems like you are using this space to store your "work in progress" or your preferred version. Again, please show some civility. Thanks. миражinred 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is customary to keep a "work in progress" like this in a sandbox, rather than on your talk page. I can create one for you, if you don't know the procedure for doing so. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted below, I'd welcome a subpage. But my current sandbox is being used for another article. Can one have more than one sandbox? --Strider12 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Within reason, sure; but they can't be used as a sub rosa way of turning Misplaced Pages into your webserver or storing your own documents on Misplaced Pages's servers. The main advantage to keeping a draft here, at least briefly, is to double-check your mark-up code. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notice

Hello, Strider12. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MastCell 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's a more direct link, though I don't know how long it will work if they archive the page frequently.Strider12 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of user talk pages

Strider12, the purpose of your user talk page is to serve as a means of communication with other Misplaced Pages editors. Your draft of the Post Abortion Syndrome article should be moved to a subpage. If you don't know how to do this, I will do it for you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to learn how to create a subpage. My goal is simply to allow others to collaborate on an article where material will not be deleted simply because it goes against a POV bias.--Strider12 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you already have a sandbox. It's at User:Strider12/Sandbox. You created it yourself on December 27, around the same time you turned your user talk page into a content fork. MastCell 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strider12, I've moved the material to User:Strider12/Draft. I've also deleted the paragraph where you tell people they need your permission to edit, since that violates Misplaced Pages policy. Let me know if you need more help. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. How do you create and access draft pages?

2. I thought Misplaced Pages policy gave one some more autonomy to control his/her own talk page(s). If people can come in and delete content that I am trying to build with persons who are not POV pushers who delete verifiable material, I'm back to square one where it is impossible to have a collaborative work because people keep deleting verifiable material.

3. I actually want to start advocating for a policy that would support "parallel development" for both sides of controversial issues. While similar to MPOV recommendations, it would be intended as primarily a short term solution to let both sides of an argument develop their "versions" with all the evidence they want and then try to merge after substantive work has been done. That would reduce the very frustrating problem of having verifiable material constantly deleted by POV pushers...at least until each side can put their best face forward. As it is, I and others with expertise can't make any significant progress in contributing material without facing constant deletions. Reading about other's frustruations along the same lines, the current process tends to wear out experts who have real jobs to the point where they abandon Wikipeida to the high schoolers and POV pushers who edit with lots of zeal but little insight.--Strider12 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To create a draft page, just type in the title you want to use, with your user name followed by a slash and the title (e.g. User:Strider12/Sandbox2) into the search box. It will come back as a non-existent page; then just click on "Create this page", which should be one of the options. When you save it, it will be up and running. As to "parallel development", this sort of idea has generally been explicitly rejected as circumventing and defeating the consensus-building process (see WP:POVFORK). As to the current process tending to wear out experts with real jobs in favor of people with lots of zeal and little insight, you're preaching to the choir. MastCell 23:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand and approve of the goal of consensus building. But that still requires that all involved have an opportunity to lay their cards on the table, in a coherent fashion, so consensus building can be fully informed. By at least allowing temporary "forks" many advantages can be had. First, editors on each side who understand NPOV can better moderate enthusiasts on "their side" and can better appeal to enthusiasts on the "other side" to work on the other fork and leave theirs alone until it is finished. Then, once both sides get well developed articles, the leadership developed by lead editors on each fork will help lay the groundwork for integrating both sets of facts and authoratitive opinions into a single article that respects NPOV standards. In some very controversial cases, perhaps an integrated article can never be satisfactorily achieved. But in most cases I think it could. But the process of allowing parallel development would assist that goal by not only saving saving time, but more importantly by encouraging participation of people with good material to contribute but not the time to babysit it. The end result could be much more authorative and complete articles. As Misplaced Pages is always a work in progress, even policies may change.--Strider12 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some answers:

1. Several ways. Maybe the easiest is to go to your own user page, User:Strider12. Then, in the title bar for your browser add a slash and the name of the page you want to create so you have a URL something like http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Strider12/MyNewPage. When you hit return and reach to the nonexistent page, just click the Edit tab and begin editing it. The page will be created automatically.

2. There is some latitude in maintaining your own user space but this latitude doesn't include telling people not to edit. All pages within Misplaced Pages belong to the community; that's non-negotiable.

3. You're welcome to develop drafts and propose them. As a practical matter, merging two strongly conflicting drafts is theoretically possible and has occasionally been attempted but I've never seen a case where it actually worked. Much better to reach consensus on a single draft. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any other questions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Wikinfo does encourage MPOV pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Wikinfo was specifically designed as a fork of Misplaced Pages which would not implement NPOV, but would present each subject in a positive light. MastCell 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Previous warnings deleted and not found in User talk:Strider12_Archive: Talk page etiquette, edit warring and WP:3RR (12/05/07), canvasing, block warning (12/09/07), disruptive editing WP:POINT(12/15/07), WP:SPA, WP:COI - from 4 different editors all for Post-Abortion Syndrome, now called Abortion and mental health.

Strider, might we agree not to edit war? I reverted this edit in a good faith revert (per talk page consensus) as part of WP:BRD. Your edit summary "Please discuss and allow other editors to discuss before deleting" seems somewhat disingenuous given that you just basically contradicted your previous agreements to stub the article, and the fact that the changes you've now brought into force twice now go directly against the consensus of User:Kuronue, User:Saranghae honey, User:MastCell, User:Equazcion, User:Andrew c, User:IronAngelAlice, User:KillerChihuahua (tacitly), and myself (that's just about all of us), thereby re-establishing the same patterns of edit-warring that the stub was designed to avoid.

When I reverted your edit, I noted in my edit summary the consensus and discussion on the talk page. You did not address the consensus to achieve consensus before moving forward with the stub before you reverted back to your original edit (which I noticed you just moved from your sandbox - you know the one you've been working on for a while, all by yourself, the one which now focuses exclusively on PAS, with a ton of info on the minority, one might say, fringe view that abortion is traumatic). This was in no way my failure to "allow other editors to discuss before" I reverted. So might you consider how these recent edits foster good faith toward an editor with your track record? Phyesalis (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Last week the article was stubbed, and I was in agreement. This Monday I find it renamed to Abortion and Mental Health, greatly expanded with a rambling intro, deletion of all balancing materials. So, okay, if there is a new consensus to broaden the topic from PAS to abortion and mental health, I added material regarding the history of the abotion and mental health controversy and moved much of the rambling intro (for example, material related to Koop) into the appropriate sections describing the controversy. I think my recommendation for a section on the history of the controversy provides a real functional basis for organizing material in a coherent NPOV fashion. Instead of deleting my contribution, why not try to refine it and build on it?--Strider12 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the users disagree with you. And it's not a just a consensus to expand the scope, but to shrink the focus on PAS because it's getting way too much WP:WEIGHT. It is not a legitimate diagnosis. Even you admitted that the incremental accretion of material on this topic has lead to edit-warring. There are a number of other issues to discuss and a number of us are getting tired of reading the same lengthy post about "bias" (see Kuronue's post on the talk page) over and over again. You seem to be pushing a particular POV that is inline with your WP:COI and limited WP:SPA activities. I think this is a problem. I don't think I'm alone (judging by all the warnings you've gotten in relation to this issue). Perhaps you would agree to revert back to yesterday's consensus version and join us in the conversation we've been having? It's a lot easier to discuss these things and actually come to a mutually satisfying compromise if neither side feels compelled to reinstate their "more neutral" version. We've suggested using a mock-up. What do you think? --Phyesalis (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think MastCell and I were close to a one paragraph article on PAS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health/Archive_3#More_Stubbing_Needed.3F here" But then people started putting a bunch of unsupported statements in again and broadening the topic. I'd agree to a one paragraph stub while we work on a mock-up, but the current version is loaded with inaccuracies and weasel words. And again, people keep trying to blank veriable material that I've added just because they feel it goes against the WEIGHT that they insist must dominate.Strider12 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you were. And you haven't gotten enough credit for that. Unfortunately,there has been across the board consensus to change the scope. Technically, because PAS isn't a legitimate diagnosis, it's on thin ice to begin with in the medicine project. If you revert it back to the mutually agreed upon version from last night, we all want to move forward a step (or two) at a time. If you want to take it back to an earlier stub, that's your choice, but people are getting really fed up. I know you think we're all wrong, and I know that is frustrating, but you've kind of dug yourself into a hole with your user page there. (Might I repeat Saranghae honey's request that you remove the other editors' comments from your user page?) Compiling user comments from article talk pages and reposting them as the emblem of your cause can be viewed as a personal attack. Prolonged patterns of edit warring, combined with personal statements acknowledging a possible COI and the emblem/cause cast you in a particularly unfavorable light. Everybody is losing their GF. Sometimes, in order to move forward in good faith, editors have to let it go for a short period of time, leaving the article to remain in a less-than-perfect state while a resolution develops.

And I know, who the heck am I to "lecture" you? I'd just like to point out that I am one of the last remaining person willing to discuss this with you like two reasonable people. I've also tried to make space for you, see my first comment at User talk:IronAngelAlice#Abortion and mental health. I'm willing to do this because I hope we can all get to the point where we can co-edit peacefully, which means that I credit you with wanting to collaborate. So think it over. I really appreciate you talking this out with me. I think this is productive and I hope you do, too. Thank you. --Phyesalis (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Strider12/policy#Proposed_Editing_Policy_Agreement I welcome your comments before posting it at the article pageStrider12 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "PAS is not a legitimate diagnosis"...that is not the point. It is a fact that it has been proposed as a diagnosis and is the subject of ongoing research. In that regard, the stub would have been appropriate.Strider12 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is the point. If PAS had been accepted, then there'd be all sorts of room to play with. Even if this were a new issue thre'd be room. However, for the past twenty years, scientific consensus says it's not, which is to say, PAS has been rejected. Therefore, it should get little play in an article about Abortion and mental health. I'm sorry that I didn't have time to review your post above - but when you're reposting large sections of texts already on WP, it's considered good form to take pity on the servers and just post a link. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It took sixty years for PTSD to get into the DSM, even though it was well described as "shell shock" during WW-1. But for sixty years it was argued that the "shock" was due to prior mental weaknesses. In the last seven years, there have been at least seven studies showing PTSD caused by abortion in at least some women. Brenda Major, a pro-choice advocate using very strict criteria, found 1.4% had abortion induced PTSD at two years (following a 50% drop out rate.) Such findings prove both sides right. (1) Most women do not experience abortion as a trauma, but (2) some women, even if a small number, do.

One reason it is not acknowledged in the DSM is that there is no need for it. As MastCell has pointed out, we don't have "post-rape trauma syndrome." There never was a need for a new term. Nonetheless, the concept is being widely accepted and fits into DSM without the formal approval of a "new name."

The Wilmouth quote is a very important one. As he indicates, the real controversy is around defining at what point there are "enough" post-abortion psychological reactions that it warrents notice as a public health or political issue. The pro-lifers argue that any negative reactions justify state intervention to "protect" women. The pro-choicers argue that a few women "regretting" their abortions is no reason to hamper access to abortion for all other women. Those are policy questions, not factual questions. The fact is that there is no doubt that some women have problems.

Here's a part of the APA 1990 (Adler, Science) article you don't see quoted as much:

"Case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion" but "severe negative reactions are infrequent in the immediate and short-term aftermath, particularly for first-trimester abortions. Women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand may be a relatively higher risk for negative consequences." Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.

See, even one of the major sources used to deny that there is a problem actually concedes there is a problem for some women, particularly women who fall into higher risk categories. In fact, you start investigating these categories and you'll find they include a very large percentage of women having abortions.--Strider12 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and mental health

Just checking in after helping you out with the subpage. It appears things aren't going well. A look at the Abortion and mental health article suggests you may have violated 3RR but I haven't gone into the details. In any event it's clear that you're edit warring on that article and are opposing the consensus of numerous other editors. Please back off a little and attempt to work cooperatively with others. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see for the report if interested. --B (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A review of the four edits provided by MastCell will demonstrate that I was adding new and DIFFERENT material each time. This is not a violation of 3RR. Indeed, I notice MastCell did not report Photouploaded who deleted my material in each case. Also, these edits followed a four day rapid and vast expansion of the article from a previous stub in which I did not participate, see here. As others were making many radical changes to the article, this invited, if not demanded, the additional material I added...plus some MINOR corrections I made to material others had contributed. As a general rule, I try to avoid deleting material and focus on adding relevant and verifiable information.

As will be seen here MastCell and throughout the discussion page, MastCell is leading a campaign to delete verifiable material and references to peer reviewed studies which contradict the four or five sources she insists must define the WEIGHT of the article. See the long history of this article and you will see that editors contributing material documenting abortion and mental health research and experts have been viligently cut and bullied. You will also see that MastCell and others refuse to actually provide evidence beyond a couple sources that the WEIGHT of opinion justifies their brutal censorship tactics. See here.

The fact that there is a hard core of abortion defending editors who insist on censoring material that does not conform with their few sources denying a link between abortion and mental health does not reflect a true "consensus." True collaboration of editors, which I support, would mean finding ways to include all verifiable material rather than slanting the article to what one side insists is the WEIGHT of evidence. Weight should be shown by facts, not declared on the talk page to justify purging and censorship. (As noted, several editors openly discussed and implemented "viligitent purging" of 22 peer reviewed sources months ago...none of which has been allowed back into the article.)

The "consensus" advocated by MastCell reflects nothing more than gang tactics of POV-pushers who refuse to allow presentation of any evidence that conflicts with their POV and and refuse to actually follow[REDACTED] policy regarding inclusion of reliable verifiable sources (especially peer reviewed material in top medical journals!) For MastCell, the game is to claim WEIGHT is on her side, to ignore all evidence that the weight of both facts and opinion is otherwise, and to start deleting.

This 3RR complaint is just another misleading, manufactured complaint intended to harrass me.

Is there a good way to get some unbiased editors involved in this article who actually believe in letting the evidence be presented?--Strider12 (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Strider12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

The 3RR complaint shows the edits that you were undoing. These are indeed generally to different sections of the article but they are still undoing someone else's work. This is a clear violation of WP:3RR. — Yamla (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In general I was trying to avoid undoing anyone elses work and was keeping cited material and reorganizing. I though 3RR was reverting the same material back and forth. But if the standard is against making three or more changes to someone else's work, I will try to be alert to it and will also start filing 3RR complaints against those who repeatedly delete my contributions. In general, I have tried to tolerate these deletions and to try to find other material that can be added.

Also, as the first accused revert was on the 21st and my last accused revert was Jan 22 at 15:17, why does my 24 hour block last until Midnight the 24th?Strider12 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)