User talk:Goodandevil

/Archive 1 through March 18, 2006.

"vandalism"

Goodandevil, hi. I just wanted to give you a link to Wikipedia:Vandalism. If you read that page, you'll note that the word "vandalism" is defined rather strictly here. Pro-Lick is wrong to refer to your talk page edits as vandalism, and you are just as wrong to describe his edits that way. What we're dealing with here is a talk page content dispute, some structuring issues, and a failure to dialogue about suggested changes rather than just making them. I think we've also got some unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy, practice and culture floating around, so let's all be careful to avoid escalation of rhetoric. Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I did notice that (and inserted the parenthetical comment). Good 18:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Pro-Lick's removal of talk page comments

See User talk:DonaNobisPacem#Re:Venting - I was dealing with the same thing a few days ago on Pro-Lick's page......I've run into this before, and unfortunately most Wikipedians seem to take the stance "It's his talk page, so......" If it comes up to an admin issue, the history can always be checked to note your warnings/advice. I have to agree with GT in "Venting", in that I am more worried if he is removing comments and such from article talk pages. As a side note, there was one instance when I preserved another's talk page conversation on MY talk page for the same reason (they were deleting them), just to have it accessible/visible.DonaNobisPacem 17:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Lick's talk page

Hi, Goodandevil. I've seen what's going on at Pro-Lick's talk page. He's obviously completely in the wrong to describe your messages as vandalism. However, I don't think you'll gain anything by continuing to post and re-post messages there. He's also deleting or modifying messages from others. Once a message has been sent, it's in the history, and if he's the one who removes it (no matter how rudely) you know at least that he has seen it, and there's evidence for later, in case it's needed. I'd suggest sticking to the article talk page. There are some very nice, very fair Wikipedians there, GTBacchus being one, and if you make your points there, with references, etc., and just ignore the rudeness of Pro-Lick and others like him, you'll find that there are many people from the pro-life and pro-choice POVs who are willing to collaborate with you and work together to find a wording that is truly NPOV. That, at least, has been my experience here at Wikipedia. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 18:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-lick keeps removing polite fair comment from his talk page

I have warned you many times via the summary (which is very visible in history and when you look at your watchlist) that your comments are not welcome on the page. After reading your first comment, the rest have been reverted immediately without reading. Unless I indicate otherwise, that will not change. That means do not reply there. Here, you can reply on and on and be assured I won't care or read a word.--Pro-Lick 01:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had my comments been mean or an attack, I would consider heeding you warning. Since my posts to your talk page are the very type of posts that belong on a talk page (polite, and warning about unhelpful editing behavior), I will continue to replace them every single time you remove them. Good 08:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it would be better to leave it if he removes them. Yes, it's abominbably rude to remove polite comments, and he is certainly behaving as a problem editor, but it's just getting involved in an unnecessary edit war if you keep replacing comments on his talk page. I remember this kind of thing was discussed at one of the administrators' noticeboards a few months ago, and someone said that if an editor removes warnings etc. from his own talk page, we know that he has seen them (and have evidence for later, if it's needed), so putting them back serves no purpose except hassling him. Believe me, several administrators are aware of his behaviour. By the way, I thought I told you this last night, but I can't find my post so maybe I didnt't — he has started altering your user page, which is a very strange action for someone who deletes other people's polite comments from his own talk page. I reverted to your last version, as I was sure that his changes would not be welcome. Please let me know if you need any help, but please consider dropping the battle on his talk page. If you have reason to send him a new message, and you think it's important, fine. But if you keep restoring posts that he has deleted it just looks as if the two of you are squabbling. Regards. AnnH ♫ 09:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ann. Your message is sent; don't worry about it. You gave Pro-Lick some good advice, from someone who's been there, and it was noted by those of us who are paying attention. Let's just focus on the article, and if Pro-Lick wants to keep digging... -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool...

...I'm gonna "see talk", but thanks for the reminder. :) No, I don't mind you reverting that version, but please do note that I've added it to the current discussion, and please do leave your feedback there. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial-birth abortion

Your edits are not going to be allowed until you come to Talk and justify them. This is a reasonable request and your continued refusal to honor it is a sign of bad faith. Alienus 17:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to understand that you are already in violation of WP:3RR. As a courtesty, I'm going to give you an opportunity to undo your last reversion. If you don't, I'll simply report you and have you banned. A quick look at my ban log shows that this is a real occurance and it applies to people just like you. Alienus 08:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are inviolation of the 3rr policy. You are simply reverting non-consesnsus langauge. I am at least trying to make edits based on concenrs of other editors. Good 08:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that I am. I looked at the history and my four reverts were spread out over the course of a few days. Yours fell within a single 24-hour period, clearly violating the rule.

The fundamental problem is that you see thing as a matter of good vs. evil with yourself as the former. Such black and white thinking demonizes your opponents and makes cooperation impossible. To you, I'm some sort of eager baby-murderer, so no rules apply. Well, guess what? Rules apply.

You've forced me to report you Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Goodandevil. Are you happy now? Alienus 09:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation at Partial-birth abortion

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Partial-birth abortion. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 12:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you did violate the rule, as partial reverts also count. The "fourth revert"[1] may not actually have been a revert, but the fifth one [2] was a partial revert, as you reinserted "commonly" and "descriptive term". It's still counted as a revert even if you incorporate something else into it so that it's not identical to a previous version.

By the way, you can still edit your talk page while you're blocked. And it might be a good idea to try to edit a few articles on subjects you care less about when you come back, without necessarily disappearing from the subjects you do care about. People who are very pro-life or very pro-choice and edit only articles related to their POV can be taken less seriously, as it always looks as if they're here with an agenda. Even though I think almost everyone who knows me on Wikipedia is aware that I'm an obedient Catholic and am completely against abortion, I have an average or 2.3 edits per page, and I think that gives me more credibility in a way. It also helps to keep me from getting stressed over conflicts. :-) Anyway, you'll be back tomorrow, I hope. AnnH ♫ 16:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you're quite welcome to return to Partial-birth abortion. I only ask that you avoid edit-warring and instead focus on talking about controversial changes in advance so as to determine if it has consensual support. I tried very hard to solve this without reporting you, and I'm unhappy that it came to that. I'd like to imagine that, rather than coming back angry and even less cooperative, you might consider that there are better ways to get your point across. If you're not ready to do that now, then perhaps Ann's suggestion might be wise, but I'm hoping that you're better than that. Alienus 21:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

I invite you to help us out at Christianity Knowledge Base. (unsigned by Nsandwich)

Nan may have a point in inviting you to a project that not only allows but requires pro-Christian bias. Then again, if you're capable of objectivity, you could just stick around here. Your choice. Alienus 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation

Your recent revert on Pro-life is in direct violation of the consensus and constitutes edit-warring. I will be counting your reversions with the goal of getting you banned again, this time for a bit longer. Alienus 23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have started an edit war - again. And are now goading - again. You have reverted twice already. So the score is tied. I am counting. Meanwhile, go read the talk page. Your POV insertion will not stand - I am quite certain of it. Good 23:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert as often as I must to keep POV out of that article. I will also space my reverts so as to avoid 3RR violation. In the end, because the changes you support violate NPOV, they will be removed. It's a matter of when, not if. Alienus 23:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil

Your text at User_talk:Musical_Linguist#Alienus.27_nickers_in_a_twist, particularly the title, is [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]. Please control your temper when you're losing. Alienus 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given you recent highly uncivil comment on the pro-life talk page ("The question is not whether you will lose this battle, but how soon and with how much bloodshed. If you back away now, maybe you won't get banned again. Otherwise, this could get ugly"), I am not concerned in the least. In fact, it was your incivility that freed me up to state quite plainly that your nickers are in fact in a a twist. Good 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, Good. Thanks for your support. Perusing your talk page, it is obvious that Alienus is obsessed with you. I don't know what you did to deserve that but ... I feel your pain! --Hyphen5 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Lick

Zoe indef blocked Pro-Lick and no one seems to mind at this point. JoshuaZ 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just coming to your page to tell you that. Also, see here and here. I wouldn't bother talking to him anymore. He's blocked, so he can't do any harm to the article except through sockpuppetting, and his socks will be blocked as well. So, since anything from a pro-life editor (or even a pro-choice editor who's not as pro-choice as Pro-Lick thinks he should be) will probably inflame him even more, I'd just keep away from him. I may leave something on his talk page, but it will be as an admin, leaving evidence for any other admin who may be looking into this. I won't leave any comments directly for him. No point in kicking someone who's down. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion - First Paragraph

Hi G&E - I thought the new proposal was good - it takes into account the medical definition - which is, I have discovered, technically before viability (it is called "Late Term Abortion," not abortion, or "stillbirth," not miscarriage or spontaneous abortion, after viability. What the date of viability is is a matter of debate, but most of the medical sources I checked out gave 20 weeks - which is somewhat on the cautious, as opposed to liberal, side of viability). The most important thing I think the proposed definition though, is to demonstrate that for the majority of usage (in religion, law, and everday speech - hence my insertion of the term "common parlance"), they think of abortion to be the induced procedure, at any point of gestation, and as the death of a fetus (regardless of which side in the argument they take). I thought this actually offers MORE than the current definition, in accurately representing diversity of views - even amongst the medical community (b/c common parlance automatically includes the everyday speech of doctors, outside of their medical definitions). So that's why I've decided to work with this version - it actually might stick, includes key phrases that I think represent NPOV, and represents the diversity of views, in a short paragraph. Input? DonaNobisPacem 05:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. How did you make the sudden "discovery"? We know that there are plenty of medical definitions that use the word death and don't mention viability at all. I just see the opening paragraph becoming bloated or edited so that the opening line remains and any colloquial definition is edited out for brevity or some other made up reason. Pro-abortionists don't want there to be an honest presentation of facts. They always lose when that happens. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a sudden discovery - when I googled abortion definitions, I rejected any definition that was from a common dictionary, etc, and tried to focus on known medical dictionaries. In these, I found abortion tended to be defined as before 18-20 weeks, or alternatively as before viability - they would then define late term abortion and stillbirth as after 18-20 weeks, or again, after viability. I didn't find any (recent) medical sources that actually used death in their definition - although some, as I quoted ages ago, would use it later on in describing causes of miscarriage/stillbirth, or in statistics, etc. Did I list the sources I used - no, as I am spending too much of my exam time here already ; ) Don't worry, I'm not abandoning my previous position, just trying to get a definition both sides will feel is worth defending in various regards, which means it might actually stay - particularly because this is getting all around support so far, save for a few, rather than a narrow margin of majority. DonaNobisPacem 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion consensus

Don't enforce your own consensus. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Good, please don't edit war the introductory paragraph. We have quite a strong consensus behind the current version, let's try not to get the page protected again, ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no actual consensus voiced - certainly a poll will bear out a consensus if it exists. Besides, Royboy abused his admin status by changing the opening during a freeze. ____G_o_o_d____

Alright, we'll have a poll. Please don't edit war while it's going on. The worst thing that can happen is the article is wrong for a few days. That's so much better than reversions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to talk to Royboy about that.____G_o_o_d____ 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango, Good. The only winner in an edit war is the one who walks the hell away. Royboy shouldn't revert either, but his wrong doesn't make your wrong a right. Please don't edit war for any reason, ever. Ever. Royboy, please just leave it, the worst thing that happens is the article is wrong for a few days, which is much better than reversions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is technically correct; but a consensus was voiced. As such I was editing in good faith. I'm unsure what a poll would accomplish; but by all means. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a strong consensus so any attempt to damage the first paragraph will be reverted. This isn't edit-warring; it's enforcing the consensus. Edit-warring is what Evil does when he refuses to accept that consensus. Alienus 07:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, it's edit warring no matter how right you are. It takes getting used to, I know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those points that we disagree on. Alienus 08:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, dat. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

Sorry I was not up to speed with this. I have been fighting a battle for NPOV in Post-abortion syndrome. --WikiCats 12:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A battle involving NPOV, anyhow. Whether you're fighting for or against it is, to be frank, debatable. Alienus 14:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Removing the lead paragraph of abortion is vandalism. Alienus 14:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for registering your opinion.____G_o_o_d____

3RR on Abortion, first paragraph

Goodandevil, I'm going to block you for a 3RR violation now.

Why did you do that, silly? Try to adopt a more mature approach to editing after your block and ~~never, ever, ever, ever edit war~~ please refrain from edit warring in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the second block he's getting on the same article. Amazing. Alienus 19:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most admins who are part of a debate do not jump in and make questionable blocks, as bacchus has done. This is very similar to Royboy sneaking in this major change during an article freeze. Apparently that is the favored tactic - use admin status to win when the intellectual argument fails. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this block questionable, Goodandevil? You can't make a more blatant 3RR violation, and you've done it before. I didn't even increase the block time from your last block, which would have been pretty standard. I admit I was irritated when I blocked you, and I've moderated my language above accordingly, but I stand by the fairness of the block. If someone violates the 3RR on the "other side", I'll be just as ready to block for that. Since you've objected though, I've posted on the administrators' noticeboard and asked other admins to reveiw my action. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for new abortion opening

8 would oppose the new opening as proposed.

7 would adopt the new opening as proposed.

Thus, there is no consensus to change the long-standing language of the opening. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving my comment: I have no problem with that - thanks for the notice on my talk page and comment on the page, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest round of Abortion edits

As usual you start with some decent edits, well explained by edit comments, but then stray into controvertial edits with no explanation. You know these are controvertial, so post them on the talk page. Otherwise we go round cleaning up your muddle of decent and unreasonable edits and it makes it hard to take any of them seriously. Just don't get carried away, |→ Spaully°τ 13:57, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

re:Rhetoric or reality?

It was more than just that one comment. I mean "hitman", "she wants a dead baby", "resource sponge", etc. This has nothing to do with the first paragraph. I'm glad you have an outlet for your rants, but please try to stay on topic. This may be a fault of mine, but like I said, if you tone down your emotional, partisan language, I might take you more seriously. But right now, you have failed to persuade me that the defining aspect of an abortion is the death of a fetus. But you have made it abundantly clear what you POV is. --Andrew c 00:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. You gave a specific example of what you thought was over top rhetoric, and I produced evidence that the words you considered to be over the top pro-life rhetoric were the same as those uttered by a respected abortionist in sworn testimony during a federal trial. Allow me to pass on an obsrvation: the consistent preference for euphemisms indicates a discomfort with reality that is psychologically unhealthy.____G_o_o_d____ 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... ok. Whatever. --Andrew c 00:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a habit of pretending you are deaf or illiterate when your bluff is called. Why do you hide from the points I make - from the intellectual challenge? I always benefit from a good intellectual dialogue. You seem to turn tail and run whenever we get close to one. I hope you will reconsider. I realize that you might know something I don't - or have ideas that I might benefit from. You ought to try a similar approach. ____G_o_o_d____

You throw emotional and politically charged arguments at me during a content dispute, and now you insult me. What do you want me to do? Argue back? I am not "pretnding I am deaf or illiterate", I am walking away from an argument. You may want to read WP:Is Not. Sorry to ruffle your feathers. I hope we both can cool our jets and eventually work again towards consensus on the article.--Andrew c 01:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You post a snide comment thinking you have proven a point, your comment is then shown to be demonstrably incorrect or off the mark, and then you pretend not to notice. Its kind of funny to watch because it is so predictable. ____G_o_o_d____ 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Abortion Poll

I don't really have a strong preference either way. Anyway, I still voted. I hope that's on what you were requesting comment. -Severa | !!! 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Severa, you were recruited by Goodandevil to help bias the vote. Thank you for your role in making the vote a complete and total joke that I will freely ignore. Alienus 03:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hell of a way to garner consensus. That attitude helps explain why your effort failed. ____G_o_o_d____ 07:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey G&E - thought you might get a kick out of this. Now back to my exams.....DonaNobisPacem 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring again.

Do yourself a favor and stop edit-warring on partial-birth abortion. You do know that I am among a number of people who would report you for WP:3RR without delay and you know that you'll get banned even longer this time. Just give it up; you can't force your POV on us. Alienus 03:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, you should be familiar with being blocked for violating 3RR. ____G_o_o_d____ 07:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really

I made a mistake, but I don't see it as a "bad example". I believed a consensus was reached and was editing in good faith. I'm entirely aware of the rules regarding protection; but I thought the installation of the new paragraph was taking its sweet time. When Andrew c suggested it be implemented because it was at least better than the old version and would allow more users to see it for further input; I concurred and was bold. It had nothing to do with the protection, which I could have removed and then implemented the new paragraph as it could take weeks to finish discussion on the new version. (the current version looks pretty weak (ie. "associated") now that we have another version) When you reverted I initially resisted, but when I realized I had overstepped my privileges I backed off. But you did not; if I'm a "bad example" I'm sure as heck ain't the only one... as I don't see the purpose of putting back the old version who's consensus isn't exactly ironclad to begin with. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 12:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me that you, personally, did back off quickly. I can understand that it was just unintended bad timing (coincidence of the page freeze). ____G_o_o_d____ 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slow edit war on pro-life

You keep adding this phrase into pro-life: "the current feminist view that abortion is a human right." However, there is an external link on the exact same article to Feminists for Life. It is much more accurate to associate this phrase with reproductive rights as opposed to feminism. I urge you to please stop reverting this phrase, or make a case for it on the talk page. Thanks.--Andrew c 03:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted so much POV language in your most recent edit! Stop bitching about an edit war, when your POV insertion is the major cause of it. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to stay civil. --Cyde Weys 05:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, telling someone to "butt out" is not appropriate either. If you do not want other people to involve themselves in your discussion, Wikipedia is not the place for you. There is no ownership of articles. jacoplane 11:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete his comments, I made a blunt request. I now ask you to butt out, too. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely concur with Jacoplane. You were reminded to be civil by an administrator; your response is to tell him to "Butt out"? I think you need to take a brief time-out to examine your actions and motives here. This is highly inappropriate behavior on your part. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will always feel free to tell any admin who butts in with a (useless cutsie patronizing "reminder") to butt out. The admin can ignore me if he wants to - as you and jacoplane have done. When someone keeps bitching, I will not shy away from stating so. You can keep coming here to post patronizing comments if you wish. I would think you might have better things to do - but if reminding me of the pecking order of wikipedia is that important to you, post away. Its your life. Why don't you alert all admins to post their views of my behavior here? It would be fun to see what they all have to say. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Your recent edits to Pro-life http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pro-life&diff=48232417&oldid=48230743 , are highly POV. Please remember to review WP:NPOV. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the diff I linked to was actually another user's reversion of your edits. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing - you and Alienus apparently do not know what neutrality is. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality <> agreeing with you. Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings by an abortion adovcate

You are adding contentious text to the article on partial birth abortion. You know that your POV on this is not neutral. If you continue to remove content discussed ont he Talk page, and to add large chunks of POV, I will block you. You may not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: seek consensus before making controversial changes or you will be blocked for disruption. Just zis Guy you know? 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you just don't realize that the term PBA is the most common term for that type of abortion in the USA, where this abortion method is most often practiced. Doctros call it something else - IDX. Journalists and politicians call it PBA. First off, it is a term. Perhaps we can call it a lay term. But to call it a "non-medical" term is to imply that the default for most people when discussing abortion is to use medical terms. But that is not the case. Opening with "a non-medical term" is simply not neutral. It is a term used by most people for IDX. It is not a medical term. It was coined by legislators. Your POV is certainly influencing your efforts on this page - despite your claim to neutrality. I am not editing the article to favor any viewpoint. BUt you are. No consensus is needed to remove overt POV langauge. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be POV language, Good, but it's not blatantly so, and there are clearly editors who disagree that it's POV. Once editors voice concern with your edit, it's officially controversial, and repeatedly making it without seeking consensus is disruptive, as JzG says. Without consensus we have edit war. Edit war = bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

. This is for 24 hours. Your repeated removal of the phrase "non-medical" without any meaningful attempt to achieve consensus for this edit, which you know perfectly well to be contentious, is unacceptable, as both GTBacchus and I have informed you above. Just zis Guy you know? 22:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed that you come back from a block and pile straight back in to making tendentious edits with absolutely no attempt to engage in debate on the Talk page. Please do not do that. You know perfectly well by now that your POV is well wide of the centre ground, and your continued introduction of POV text to the article is not helping in any way. Just zis Guy you know? 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing tendentious about my new edits. Adding the date of the annual IDX number data simply corresponds to dating the comments of Fitzsimmons. Noting the source of the data simply alerts the reader to the potential bias of the data - and this data has always been publicly treated as suspect by advocates on the other side of the debate (which mainstream press accounts have noted) and was never asserted by AGI as anything more than a good guess by AGI. I am missing how those are contentious edits. I apologize that you were taken aback by them, but they cannot be labeled as POV insertion (as explained above and in my edit summaries). Please let me know the factual basis to remove any of my changes. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few small modifications - but the factual matters need to be included in the article. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]