User talk:Severa/archive7

Thank You

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I suspect that whoever is responsible is the same person who has been vandalizing most of the pages I watch and revert vandalism on. It's a shame that people like this have to be around to bring Wikipedia down, but thanks to people like you, these problems get corrected before they're really issues.

Again, thank you. Vayne 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I caught the vandalism while I was monitoring the Recent changes list. I'm glad that I was able to able help you out and appreciate you having taken the time to drop me a kind word. :-) -Severa (!!!) 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Welcome back

Hello my little Snape, it's good to "see" you again, too. It's great to be back on WP, but my time is still more limited than I'd like and I'm mostly just running vandal patrols or commenting in discussions. I was very glad to see that you're still active here, and still holding up a light against the darkness : ) Doc Tropics 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Vandals

Please do not issue a lower-level warning after a final warning has already been issued, as you did to 67.78.201.85. Instead, please report the vandal to AIV if they vandalise past a final warning. Thank-you.

Chrisch^Talk 13:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't check the timestamps. Sorry. -Severa (!!!) 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Amzon rainforest

Thanks for marking this for deletion. A probably better idea, though, would have been to redirect it to Amazon Rainforest, which I have done. Thanks again for helping out. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Miscarriage

You've a good point, but I reckon that this change is fitting on this section. Theres 107 'The's in the whole article if I was to change one of those would you care? just trying to get my point across. Check out the discussion bit instead of writing are views on our reverts.--McNoddy 08:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Periodic abstinence

Hi, Severa. The result of the CfD at Category:Periodic abstinence was Delete. Lyrl has since recreated the category. Would you weigh in at Category talk:Periodic abstinence? Thank you! Joie de Vivre 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

ABC GA

Well, I've addressed most of the concerns from the last GA already; and was pondering renominating it. With the exception of the Melbye section, which I'm very much conflicted about shortening, I think the article is good to go for a GA. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the attention and the help you're offering. By the way you're doing quality work on the abortion topic, I hope to be able to help you out more on that WikiProject now that my weekends are less work related; with the goal of getting abortion featured as a topic. But with the summer in full swing now, I don't want to over promise. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Selective abortion and infanticide of females

Hi, Severa. I am concerned that it is weasel-worded to refer to it as "sex-selective" abortion when it's invariably selecting males for life and females for death. Joie de Vivre 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg requires attention

Hallo Severa, someone posted this on my talk page. Since it is basically your picture I want to forward this to you:

Hello.  An image you had previously uploaded, Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg, did not have a 
licensing tag.  Another editor has tagged the image as {{GFDL-presumed}}.  You may wish to visit 
the image page and provide the correct license.  You can view a list of all the image licensing tags 
at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All.  The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to
have a license.  Many of these {{GFDL-presumed}} image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn 
(talk) (Contr) 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted on this user's talk page as well as the one of the editor who tagged the image:

Hallo, the image above was modified by me based on an earlier image created and uploaded by 
User:KydUser:Severa (who was called Kyd back then). Please contact him for copyright 
issues. I for my part yield any little work I have done to him since the original work was his.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Retired

Take a break instead. If after a few months, you still want to stay away, then change to retired. But try it on for a while before you make it permanent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:(

Aw. I'm sorry to see you are on a wikiburnout break, Severa. We have different editing styles, and sometimes we disagree on content, but you are a good editor and I hope you come back. Joie de Vivre 13:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Jane Austen

This thread has been moved from User talk:Severa/Jane Austen.

Severa:

I am doing the same thing you appear to be doing. Clearly, something needed to be done with the current Jane Austen article.

See this page:

Jane Austen Replacement Article

I expect to be finished with the "Life/Works/Criticism" section of the article in a week or ten days, with time off for vacation travel in the middle. I've asked another editor -- Clarityfiend -- to review my work and suggest improvements, which he's been doing very helpfully. Please feel free to review my article yourself and leave comments on the "talk" page, as Clarityfiend has done.

Replacement Article Talk Page

When writing and review is done, I expect to post an invitation on the Talk page of the main Jane Austen article for those with an interest to review and comment before I do any wholesale replacement. Simmaren 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Researching Wikipedia Online Survey

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - Abortion, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent tag stupidity

I am sorry Severa, as you may or may not know, I was already scolded by Icarus...Thank you, I shall endeavor to use more common sense next time.--Cutesmartguy 05:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wicca

Not sure how to do this messaging thing. Sorry if i mess it up You sent me a message chastising me for changing the Wicca page, calling it a cult instead of a religion. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult and you will find that Wicca meets most of the definitions for a cult and more closely falls under a cult then a religion. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.0.172 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 June 2007

Jane Austen Replacement Article

Nitpicky? Nonsense -- your comments and suggestions reflect a careful reading of the article, are on point, and are very very helpful. I am back from vacation and plan to work my way through them in the next few days. Several others have indicated an interest in commenting and I expect to have my hands full for a week or two. After that, I will make the replacement and continue on with additional sections as indicated in my outline. Simmaren 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

re:Shelley Shannon Message

Pardon me but I have never made any edit to this article nor had I any idea that it even existed until today. I fear that you have made a mistake with your id of the person that you wish to speak to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.190.100 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 June 2007

List of youngest birth mothers

You have removed the linkimage template from List of youngest birth mothers, please explain why you did this in Talk:List of youngest birth mothers. --Morten LJ 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pasted from User talk:Morten LJ:

I removed the the linkimage template because the majority of those who commented at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers supported its removal (2/1). -Severa (!!!) 18:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, next time you do this kind of thing, remember to describe the change with something like "per talk-page". --Morten LJ 19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Smile

Like with KC, a lot of your edits show up on my watchlist. Whenever I see your name there, I smile because I know that someone sensible is hard at work : ) Doc Tropics 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Teenage Pregnancy was the most recent one I saw, and interestingly, your edit was followed by an edit from an IP that was actually a valid and useful contribution! I tend to be fairly suspicious of IP's because so much vandalism originates from them, but I have to admit that some do really good work as well. The teen pregnancy article was actually on my watchlist for "protective purposes"; it's one that I watch for vandalism just because I know you edit there. There are a number of articles that I keep an eye on because they are important to people that I like : ) Doc Tropics 17:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Now I'm not smiling anymore. One of the things I've always admired about you Sev, is the way you stay civil and rational in expressing your views. I'm a little upset about some recent activity at Intelligent design and on its talkpage here , and I hope you don't mind if I vent to you. This is a copy of a post that I barely restrained myself from adding to the talkpage itself:

• It happens every stinkin' time. I think I've got my temper under control, I think I can remain civil no matter what the provocation, then I encounter a pair of editors like this and my blood starts to boil. How can one possibly maintain good faith and civility in the face of aggressive ignorance and malicious idiocy? I certainly can't! I don't believe for one second that either of you is interested in improving this article; you are here to do nothing more than push your pernicious POV and disrupt legimate editing. There's a damned good reason your braindead compatriots keep getting banned Octoplus...your very presence here is a detriment to the entire project and every page you touch suffers from your presence.

As you can see, I let their baseless insults and accusations get to me, and the only way I can stay on the right side of policy is to make no reply at all. Keeping in mind that I've never interacted with either of them before today, their comments to me, and about me, seem to be way out of line. I know you didn't log in to play shrink to a disgruntled editor, but I would really appreciate any advice you might be able to offer. How the heck can one respond to, or deal with, a situation like this? I know that if you were in a similar situation, you'd be able to stay calm and talk things through...how the heck do you do that Severa? I'm sorry to lay this pile of crap at your feet and ask for your help, but I could really use your insights here. Doc Tropics 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Shelley Shannon

It seems that there is a dispute on Shelley Shannon over whether the subject of the article should be described as a "terrorist" or a "pro-life activist". You are for describing her as a "pro-life activist", while User:64.85.245.43 thinks that she should be described as a "terrorist". User:64.85.245.43 has been banned for 48 hours for "blatant NPOV violations", though I don't think that this is justified. Please discuss this issue on the talk page, and avoid edit wars, which if prolonged might violated the three-revert rule. Andrew_pmk | Talk 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Post below was copied from User talk:Andrew pmk.

There seems to have been a case of mistaken identity. On the article Shelley Shannon, the editor who repeatedly inserted the "pro-life activist" description was User:64.85.245.43, not me, as you suggested on my talk page (see diffs: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4). Also, the first edit that the anon made to the Shannon article was to replace the term "American terrorist" with "hero" (see diff), which, in my opinion, is a pretty clear-cut breach of neutrality. -Severa (!!!) 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I got those mixed up. You are for "terrorist" and the other editor is for "pro-life activist". Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not necessarily for the phrase "American terrorist," I just don't think that the editor was approaching the article neutrally, or that the sentence that resulted from the replacement of "American terrorist" with "pro-life activist" was appropriate. There have been a lot of these sorts of edits made on the article by a number of different users recently. That's why I've kept it on my watchlist. -Severa (!!!) 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Shelley Shannon anons. Doing a reverse DNS lookup, one is from San Fransisco and the other is from Concord (east bay), and they are both behind similar firewalls. I think this is more than enough to warrant a sock/meat puppet investigation (because block evasion is the issue). Consider filing a Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#Reporting suspected sock puppets. I'm pretty sure they are either socks or meats, but I'm not sure if there are more admin procedures to go through for further verification, so it's best to leave it in the hands of those familiar with investigating socks. Hopefully one day I'll learn more about the whole process. In the mean time, I'd be glad to add info to the suspected sockpuppet report if you start it. Thanks for keeping me apprised of the situation.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c's RfA

Thank you for your kind co-nomination and support in my recent RfA, which, as you know, was successful at 61/1/0. If you ever need assistance, I'd be glad to try and help to the best of my abilities. If you want to comment on my progress as a wikipedian, I welcome comments and criticism. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future as well. Thanks again.-Andrew c 13:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Long-term edits by anon

Through my investigation, I found that many of your conclusions are correct, however I cannot be sure that it is the one user in question. Needless to say, there are enough warnings on the anon's page that next time the account acts up, it will most likely be blocked, but only for 24 hours or so. It may be worth considering making a sock check so the checkusers can examine the case more thoroughly. An established user using anonymous editing to making POV edits is a serious concern (and a serious accusation). I'll keep my eye on the situation, and thanks for bringing it to my attention.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for looking into this matter. -Severa (!!!) 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

VERY sorry to see you go

Hi, Severa, I'm very, very sorry to see the retirement notice, as you were one of the editors that I was looking forward to working with. I can't email you, as your email is disabled, but I'll just state here that I hope you'll change your mind and come back to us, and if you don't, I wish you well in your life. (Actually, I wish you well in your life whether you come back or not!) Thank you for your kind comments in my RfA. Best wishes, and thanks also for all the good you did at Wikipedia. ElinorD (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Need advice?

Hi, Severa, sorry to see the retirement notice. I happened to see your comment at User talk:KillerChihuahua#Need advice, and as you may know she's been ill lately, and hasn't edited since that date. Your concern about this comment is understandable, but by now the point has been well aired on the article talk page and on the user talk of the editor in question. Perhaps it would be best to remove the question from KC's talk page, as wading through all that discussion was taxing enough for me, and not ideal for a convalescent KC. By the way, I've noted on the article talk that, despite said editor thinking the "introduction to this article is horribly biased, in that it completely omits mention of what is surely one of the most important facts", the fact in question isn't mentioned at all in the Britannica article I have to hand. Perhaps the US edition is different. .. dave souza, talk 10:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, I hope

Hi, I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions in welcoming you back. If it's true, I'm delighted. I noticed that you asked Puppy to restore your talk page and archives, but didn't mention your user page. I intended to restore everything except your user page, and then to ask you if you had intended that as well. However, I absent-mindedly restored that while I thought I was restoring your talk page. If I did the wrong thing, please just say so, and I'll delete it again immediately. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to echo ElinorD. It is a pleasure to see you editing again. Welcome back! -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew c! It's great to see you around, too, and I appreciate the kind thoughts. :-) -Severa 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Welcome back. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell! Also, thank you, KC, for the amusing pictorial message below. :) -Severa 10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• 
  wel
• 
  come
• 
  back
• 
  KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland WikiProject tag

I noticed you have been adding the basic {{WikiProject Ireland}} project tag to several talk pages recently without giving any classification or rating. The full tag is here and includes all parameters you might need. Most articles you have added the tag to would seem to be Start-class and low or mid-importance rating. By not adding that classification you are giving the assessment team more work to do than is necessary. We have being trying to reduce the unassessed articles and could do with as much help as possible from other editors to reduce the work load, having assessed more than 2,000 Irish articles in two months we are pretty well burnt out right now. Should you want to review the assessment criteria, there is quite a lot of guidance here or you can request an assessment on the same page. Thanks ww2censor 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to the articles in Category:Amendments of the Constitution of Ireland via Category:Abortion in Ireland. If I see a talk page without a WikiProject banner, I usually try to add a relevant one as a courtesy, in the hopes of drawing those with specialized knowledge to improve and monitor the article. However, I generally leave the assessing up to members of the WikiProject in question, as I personally don't really feel qualified to render judgement on the quality of articles covering subjects with which I am unfamiliar. If WikiProject Ireland is a particularly busy collaboration, though, I wouldn't mind taking a look at the articles I tagged to take some of the work off everyone else's hands. I probably won't have enough time until later today. -Severa 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever works for you will work for us. We do appreciate any tagging as it puts articles into our radar but you might get to it sooner than we will. We are trying to evaluate the higher quality articles first in terms of importance. I just happened to notice that the unassessed list had risen from 5 to 60 in a few days after we had reduced it down from over 300. Thanks for whatever you can do. Cheers ww2censor 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I assessed the Ireland-related articles to which I added the {{WikiProject Ireland}} tag. Most were "Start" class, as you'd predicted, but in terms of the Importance rating, I just played it safe and stuck mainly to "Mid." There were no special guidelines for grading legal articles on WikiProject Ireland's assessment page, only biographical and geographical ones, but I figured that any constitutional amendment was bound to be noteworthy by its nature (modifying a nation's constitution), but probably still too esoteric to be rated "High" or "Top." -Severa 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem with the long-winded answer but i tend to agree with your views. Maybe some of the individual amendments deserve a higher rating depending on their subject matter. I will give them the once over but thanks for your work. Cheers ww2censor 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nappy redirects

Rarely have I ever seen more enthusiastic redirecting that your recent EC bout, and the prior lactivist redirs. I've amended a couple of your directs, though - Infant potty training and Infant toilet training to Toilet training. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. These aren't subjects I have a personal interest in or familiarity with, I was just curious after reading about both the "diaper-free movement" and "lactivism" in the media recently, but had trouble finding the relevant articles on Wikipedia due differences in titling. I thus created a bunch of redirects to hopefully increase the accessibility of both these articles. I tend to go overboard when it comes to categorization and redirecting. -Severa 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You tripped my spam detector, but I have to agree the redirects are good, although lactivism is perhaps a bit of a neologism for something that's been going on for a fair while. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it sounded neologistic, too, so I considered moving it to the more straightforward Breastfeeding advocacy. I also thought it might be a bit of a disparaging term, because I first heard it used in a sardonic context, but, from the presence of breastfeeding advocacy sites on the internet which refer to themselves as "lactivists," I'm thinking it's okay to apply WP:MoS#Identity in this case. -Severa 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

The official process is that someone who has not significantly edited the article does their best to assess it according to Wikipedia:What is a good article? and learns Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. There is only one point I have not addressed from the last GA review; the length of the Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis#Melbye. However, I continue to be very conflicted about shortening the middle two paragraphs... I will be bold and do something quick now before I go out and socialize. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully its an improvement. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Abortion - mental health section

Hi Severa, I hope we can come to a consensus in the Talk page. Please see the issues I hope we can move past instead of getting into a revert war. --IronAngelAlice 21:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

3rr on abortion

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on abortion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --IronAngelAlice 00:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:SOCK. Use of more than one account to get around 3RR and other policies is disallowed, and, given the evidence I have compiled here I have reason to believe this might be the case regarding yourself and Justine4all. If I have made an error, I apologize, and the checkuser will confirm that, but I would still appreciate it if you would consider WP:DTTR in the future. -Severa (!!!) 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)