User talk:ChristinaDunigan
"Hijacking"
Hi, I removed your post from Wikipedia:Deletion review. It was put in the wrong place - you need to edit today's deletion log to make a new request (go to the 'Decisions to be reviewed' section and click the link where you see "Follow this link to add a new deletion review entry in today's log").
Normally I would move your post myself, but your request doesn't actually involve a deletion. Anyone may move, redirect or edit an article, and for that matter anyone may
(moving conversation back here - please reply here, I'm
- Sam, thanks for the note on Severa's redirection of my saline abortion page. I have tried but have been unable to revert. —The preceding ) 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Severa seems to have moved that page as it was, which is different from a redirect - a redirect erases all the content, whereas moving moves all the content to a new page. Then she added information on other forms of instillation abortion. If you tried to revert using the page history, you wouldn't be able to. To revert the move, you would need to click 'move' at the top of the page and then move it back to the original location. Then you would have to decide what to do with the material on other forms of installation abortion. If your account is very new, you may not get the 'move' button for a few days (that's to prevent certain vandalsfrom abusing it).
- Telling you how to do that doesn't mean I encourage you to for the moment, however. I would recommend coming to an agreement with Severa first, as splitting an article is a big step and difficult to reverse, and sign posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end to post your name and the date. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)]
- Hi again, Sam. I'm sorry if I'm using the wrong method to communicate but I'm new to Wikipedia, as I'm sure you're aware. I wasn't sure if I posted on my own talk page if you'd see it.
- Severa completely replaced my saline abortion article with her own instillation article before moving it to instillation abortion. My article focused specifically on saline abortion as it was abandoned in other countries and practiced in the United States. The amount of information unique to saline abortion certainly seemed to me to warrant a separate article.
- How much time needs to pass before I'm no longer "new" and will be able to restore my work? ChristinaDunigan 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1:54 PM August 14 2006
- I have this page on a watchlist, so I do see when you've replied. I and many other Wikipedians prefer to keep conversations on one talk page rather than two, otherwise when someone else reads it it's very difficult to follow the thread.
- I don't think at this point that reverting per se is best, as that would involve removing some of the information Severa added, which looks sourced and relevant to me. If you specifically want to add more information on saline abortion then it doesn't make sense to remove the more general information.
- You can at any point edit establish ownership and put across your point of view), which will be something you need to be careful of as you've accused Severa of having a contrary agenda with her editing (you might also want to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, incidentally).
- To retrieve the content you originally added, go to the history tab of Instillation abortion and click the dates in the edit history to see how the article stood at that time.
- You'll get the move tab once your account is 4 days old. You'll also be able to edit ]
- I have this page on a
- Severa seems to have moved that page as it was, which is different from a redirect - a redirect erases all the content, whereas moving moves all the content to a new page. Then she added information on other forms of instillation abortion. If you tried to revert using the page history, you wouldn't be able to. To revert the move, you would need to click 'move' at the top of the page and then move it back to the original location. Then you would have to decide what to do with the material on other forms of installation abortion. If your account is very new, you may not get the 'move' button for a few days (that's to prevent
Thanks again, Sam. I've fixed it.
It's hard to assume good faith when in a single day one user has nuked virtually everything you've contributed on a topic, but I'll make the effort. ChristinaDunigan 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 3:50 PM August 14, 2006
Severa is at it again. I can't find my Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health content to restore it.
I have no beefs with negotiating, but she simply nuked what I had put in, replaced it with a sentence of her own, and then claimed that there was no cite, despite the detailed cite I provided about how CRASH closed in the wake of the death of patient K.B. The very least she could have done was leave the cite in. ChristinaDunigan 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) August 15, 2006
- It was Andrew c who reverted you the second time here and here. In the future, be sure to check the "History" tab at the top of a page, to ensure you don't pin blame upon the wrong party. Also, please keep Severa (!!!) 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)]
Deletion
I notice that the Life Dynamics article didn't even get posted for quick deletion, it just got nuked. This right after the Mark Crutcher article got nuked the same day it was marked for deletion, despite the hangon tag. And I get told that I'm supposed to assume good faith. ChristinaDunigan 14:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Re:Instillation abortion
As for "hijacking" your work, you are fairly new to Wikipedia, and are obviously unaware that
On the contrary, I happen to have most of the abortion-related articles on my Watchlist, and monitor for the creation of new ones as part of my routine categorization at WikiProject Abortion. I thus have a vested interest in all such articles. Abortion is a hot-button, sensitive topic, and, as such, requires a higher calibar of neutrality and sourcing than some articles. I understand you are new to Wikipedia, but the presumption of bad faith, right off the bat, will just make a difficult situation moreso. I'd recommend keeping it
Granted, at first, it appeared that the
The article has a negative, editorialistic tone, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is clearly counter to
You took no steps to remove the original National Abortion Federation article, which was clearly taken directly from a NAF PR source and posted verbatim -- it even switches into the first person toward the end. So I don't buy your assertion that you have a problem with articles being too one-sided.
Saline abortion is distinct from other instillation abortions in that it was specifically saline that Wagatsuma and Manabe repeatedly warned about, and their predictions turned out to be accurate. This is relevant information and ought not to be censored. ChristinaDunigan 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) August 15, 2006
- The NAF mission statement was slipped into the article by an anonymous editor August 7, 2006. Although most would hesitate to call it Severa (!!!) 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)]
Mark Crutcher article
A tag has been placed on Mark Crutcher, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Mark Crutcher is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Mark Crutcher. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}}
to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. — ERcheck (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice that it got deleted despite the hangon tag. Would anybody care to explain how this doe not constitute censorship?ChristinaDunigan 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Christina, I did not delete the article...I did add the note above to notify you that it had been tagged for speedy deletion. I can't speak for the deleting admin on the deletion. I can suggest that, since you find that the subject is notable, you add verifiable sources to the article itself from the beginning — following the guidelines noted above — in particular, for biographical guidelines (also see user subpage sandbox — User:ChristinaDunigan/Sandbox— and work on the article there before posting.
- Assuming good faithon the part of the admin, please don't assume that this is an attempt at censorship; rather, a good faith effort to guard against vandalism and creation of inappropriate articles.
- — ERcheck (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The article was marked for deletion and deleted within hours despite the hangon tag, and the Life Dynamics article didn't even get the formality of the quick delete notice. There was no discussion, just nuking. How about the people with the itchy delete fingers try
Response
I've removed the db tag from the article and left a note on the
And the Life Dynamics article is nuked again!
Again, absolutely zero discussion! How do I appeal this?ChristinaDunigan 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is still there, and in fact, two versions:
- Life Dynamics Inc.
- Life dynamics inc.
— ERcheck (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how there ended up with two articles. The second one can be nuked, fine, it was just a despairing attempt to get something, anything, about Life Dynamics to stay up long enough to give me a gleam of hope that it won't be summarily nuked. The second article accident never would have happened if somebody hadn't nuked the original article to begin with.ChristinaDunigan 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do suggest that you try to be less confrontational on talk pages. It discourages folks from wanting to lend a helping / guiding hand. — ERcheck (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you want the second article to be deleted, please remove the {{hangon}} tag. Add {{db-g7}} tag in its place. This tags it that you, as the creator and sole contributor, are requesting its deletion. — ERcheck (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Contributing to Wikipedia
You jumped right in creating articles after you registered to Wikipedia. Perhaps spending a little time reading some of the introductory material suggested for
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style (formatting questions)
There is a lot of help available — from help pages and by asking on editor talk pages.
Again, I offer the suggestion of working up an article in your sandbox as a way get it in shape to pass the notability/verifability bar. — ERcheck (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What, pray tell, would be the point of working on an article in the "sandbox" when it will be summarily nuked anyway? I've already had hours upon hours of my work utterly destroyed without so much as a discussion. Should I put even more hours into work that will never be seen? ChristinaDunigan 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- You can request of an admin that the material be restored and put in your sandbox for you to work on. — ERcheck (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that time invested does not necessarily correlate to meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you familiarize yourself with these and also try to address the reasons that the articles have been nominated for deletion, you may find that the articles do not get tagged immediately. — ERcheck (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
How does one do that? (And do you have any idea how condescending that sounds? "Go play in the sandbox."?
- The "sandbox" is a terminology used for a user's subpage in which they experiment. Even the most experienced editors/contributors have sandbox pages. I've got over 14,000 edits and I have a sandbox to work in. Sorry that you don't like the terminology, it is not meant to be condescending. It's just one of the many Wikipedia words that are commonly used. (If you find my suggestions unhelpful/condescending, please let me know. I will halt my attempts to be helpful.) — ERcheck (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The "sandbox" would be all well and good if there was any evidence whatsoever that my contributions would be permitted to stand. The orginal NAF article was just NAF public relations stuff. Look at the articles on
Why should I spend hours, perhaps days, polishing an article that will just be deleted by people I can't even track down and hold accountable?ChristinaDunigan 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:MarkCrutcher_2003_sm.jpg
Thanks for uploading
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
- Wikipedia:Image use policy
- Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Pastrana.jpg
Thanks for uploading
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
- Wikipedia:Image use policy
- Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Kenny Easterday
A
]