User talk:Ros Power

Hi, please stop changing the article on CP. I have been in touch with the original author of the article and he has confirmed that the original sentence is correct. As a law student who has studied (and written about the act) I am sure he is correct. Thank you -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)^talk 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and I understand what your saying however the aim of the first sentence is to introduce the article. I am havingh a very similar discussion on ther Iraq War page where people fail to understand that the first sentence is not the be-all and end-all of the article. If you feel the sentence should stay as you have left it then I will not intefere however I am going to do some research into the act and see what I drag up. Thanks -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)^talk 18:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS don't forget to sign your comments with 4 tildes: ~~~~

Ann Furedi

Hi Ros!

An editor has raised a concern about the notability of Ann Furedi and I agreed with them. After a discussion with another admin, I've tagged the article as needing an assertion of notability adding to it (see the guideline here for what I mean by this).

My main concern is that membership of a political party with no representation anywhere in the UK at all plus former membership of a QUANGO isn't much claim to notability. I'm a member of a political party with representation in the UK, I have written for publications larger than Marxism Today and have been on a QUANGO, yet I know I'm not notable enough to be in this encyclopedia!

Would you be willing to edit the article to assert some reason why (respecting WP:NPOV, obviously!) this lady should be in an encyclopedia?

Yes I will, tomorrow evening - OK?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ros_Power (talk • contribs) .

Fine by me! Whilst everything can happen quickly on Wikipedia, I'm not one to believe that is always should, so I look forward to reading your edits tomorrow evening. ➨ Я Є DVERS 22:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't possible, I would plan to take the article to our community consensus deletion process; but please understand that this is not a reflection on you - it's simply my concerns about the notability of the subject and seems a better option that the speedy deletion that has been proposed for the article previously.

Let me know what your thoughts are, and happy editing! ➨ Я Є DVERS 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just seen that no-one has welcomed you to Wikipedia! I'm sorry about that - we try to get everyone, but sometimes miss!

This is my standard welcome message I send out to new contributors. It has some handy links that I find useful!

Welcome, Ros Power!

Hello, Ros Power, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Redvers, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

➨ Я Є DVERS 21:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiased language

Hi Ros Power. As someone who works on a few of the same articles as you, I just wanted to drop you a note of friendly advice.

Most of us working on abortion- and contraception-related articles have our opinions. Still, we try as hard as we can to remain civil with and respectful of each other. One of the ways by which we generall do this is to refer to the two camps on either side of the abortion debate as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", trying to stay away from derogatory terms such as "pro-abortion", "anti-choice" or any other name that one side calls the other. No matter what my opinion is of those in favor of outlawing abortion, I refrain from calling them "anti-woman"; in the same vein, I would hope that no matter what your opinion, you would start using the term "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion", as the latter is misleading and not accurate (just as I imagine would be your response if I were to use the term "anti-woman").

Yes, we need people on both sides of the debate to contribute to the relevant articles. I know you have come up against conflict in the talk pages that perhaps makes you question Wikipedia's openness, but I can assure you that the main problem other editors are finding with your additions is the language you use. If you made an effort to use language exhibiting a neutral point of view, rather than insisting on employing the biased language of the pro-life movement, I can assure you that your edits would be better received. There is a place for everyone here, but sometimes it takes a bit of experimentation to find the best way to contribute. As someone who seems to have a lot of information, your additions are welcome and necessary. Please just try to use an unbiased framework for making them.

Please understand that I would say the same to an editor who continuously exhibited bias on the other side, someone who refused to use "pro-life" and called pro-lifers "anti-choice". The question isn't about what each of us believes individually, but what is, in the end, going to help the articles most. Good luck. roma rin[talk to her ] 14:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-abortion/pro-choice

Hi Ros!

If you wish to use the emotive language "pro-abortion" in an article (with the suggestion that someone is in favour of forcing abortions upon unwilling women) then you need to provide a citation from an unbiased academic source for this assertion in order to avoid being accused of libel.

If, however, you mean that the subject advocates the availability of abortion, or that they choose to campaign for all, some or any women to have the choice to end pregnancies, then the term is "pro-choice".

This is not political; it is a matter of semantics - the correct use of the English language that will be understood by the majority.

Anything else would be one editor enforcing their viewpoint upon other editors. Since this would be a situation that you would find unacceptable - I'd imagine that an article about you that described you as "an anti-freewill woman-hater" would be unacceptable - then I urge you to accept "pro-choice" as a non-perjorative alternative.

And please consider the possibility that you don't know my views on the subject of abortion and remember that I haven't volunteered them to you. You can assume what my views are, but you don't actually know them. Just FYI.

Thanks for your time. ➨ Я Є DVERS 22:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Homosexuality

I'll give the article a look but I'm not promising anything. Chooserr 23:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

If you are interested in conservative issues come see the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 11:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guidelines

You can disagree with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies all you like, privately. However, you cannot override them, you cannot waste other editors' time endlessly debating them on article talk pages, and you cannot insert your own distasteful point of view into our articles. You can acquaint yourself with how things are done here if you'd like to make any useful contributions. Or you can continue on the path you're currently heading down, which may ultimately result in a block for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, or for vandalism. Exploding Boy 20:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content (as you did on Opposition to homosexuality). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. I changed it to what I think is a more appropriate redirect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

Your recent edits to societal attitudes towards homosexuality were reverted. Keep in mind that when referring to the results of polls, it is necessary to use the language used in those polls, since slight variations in language can have large effects in polling results, and so to change the language used would be to inappropriately report on the results. The poll in question does use the word 'accept', not 'tolerate' when referring to their results. In the future it might be wise to check the link to the poll before making changes like that. -Smahoney 22:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I will not accede to either of your requests.

Your reputation precedes you. Future messages from you will be deleted unread.

Civil Partnerships

Ros: The mediation page itself shows that mediation ended when one party withdrew. Please direct us to the page where the decision you quote may be found. Lost Garden 15:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Lost Garden 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Ros - you have just vandalised my Talk page. I have NOT rv'd more than three times (twice, in fact) in the past 24 hours. Such a baseless accusation requires an 'immediate' and full apology and rv unless you wish me to report your vandalism.

Your own breach of the 3RR under two ids has been reported. Lost Garden 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology is accepted, thank you. Any discussion regarding the article should be made on the appropriate discussion page. Please be aware that the aim is not to suit you, but to reflect Conti's comments on recent legislation. Lost Garden 21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Would you consider voluntarily removing or rewriting:

"...homosexual activists who seem to have targetted what is ostensibly a beneficial, encyclopaedic resource as a vehicle to disseminate propaganda, usually in direct contradiction of the facts. It can be an uphill struggle as naturally such articles are sedulously, almost obsessively, monitored by such individuals, the reasons for which can only be guessed at."

from your user page? I feel it raises questions about your adherence to WP:AGF. Thanks --Guinnog 02:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do assume good faith, and 99% of the time on WP, good faith is what we find. But the 1% of the time when we do not is enough to undermine this project. Ros Power 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to the 'Lion' discussion page

Re your edit to the Lion discussion page and specifically your comment "You people are out to force this crap down our throats to justify your own personal disorders."

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trance or Daze? (talk • contribs) .

I must agree. This is unacceptable. Please leave the arguments about worldviews off of Wikipedia. This is not an internet forum or place of opinion. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-content related comments and edit warring

Please confine your comments to the content of an article, not editors. Also, discuss changes on the Talk page rather than reverting, and follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Others also, should do the same. For example, with the matter on [1], another person appears to have resolved that matter by explaining the positions of the parties; that is, certain people think it is "equal rights" and certain people think it is "special rights". Rather than having the article take a particular position on what is ultimately just some vague phrasing, it now seems to specifically state what is actually going on, with references to sources. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask. —Centrx→talk • 19:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the word vandalism

Please do not describe edits which have been fully defined and explained in the appropriate talk page asvandalism. You have again chosen to revert an edit [2] which sought to remove your own POV amendment.

Please refer to the section on dispute resolution before making repeated changes of this sort. Your edit history clearly shows a series of heated edit conflicts about subjects on which you clearly have a strong view motivated by your religion and/or your views on morality or ethics. This is to some extent understandable, but you must remember that most users try their hardest to eschew their personal belief systems when attempting to build an encyclopaedia. Perhaps you could try to do the same.

However, I have to warn you that your description of legitimate, referenced edits as vandalism is not likely to endear you to other Wikipedians. Some, who do not assume good faith as easily as I, might consider invocation of the emotive word vandalism as a thuggish attempt to force your POV on the article in question.

Although I am trying very hard to assume good faith, sadly it appears that you again have to be warned that your behaviour does not constitute good Wikietiquette. I ask you not to use the word vandalism simply when your personal morality obliges you to disagree with an edit which has been fully referenced on the appropriate talk page. This is precisely the route suggested in the dispute resolution section on avoiding edit conflicts.

I also add my name to those who have had to ask you to think before making ill-advised edits to articles. The policy on NPOV is clear and unambiguous. There is an especially relevant FAQ section on NPOV and religion. You are a relatively new user, so I respectfully suggest that you familiarise yourself with it. - Stevecov 20:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tranent

Ros. Thanks for your note. I have spent much of my spare time over the last five years taking my daughters to badminton tournaments, including several at Tranent. best wishes Bob BScar23625 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Cultural Marxism

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Cultural Marxism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]