Talk:Abortion/Archive 16

message: I suspect most of you are from the US but it would be helpful if you could expand the articles from other countries for example, NZ. As mentioned in the NZ abortion article Abortion in New Zealand the law currently only allows abortion when it a risk to the mental health or physical health of the mother. This is similar to the law in some (all?) Australian states I believe. Generally speaking I believe, it has been interpreted rather loosely to allow abortion on demand i.e. to mean that anyone who genuinely wants an abortion (and is not being pressured) into it can get once for mental health reasons. This is a big amibigous and technically there may be a legal risk to doctor I believe. The article on Australia isn't too bad but the article on NZ needs more info around this. I'm a bit to busy to add to it but perhaps someone could? Maybe try recruting some people from NZ to help you. To start you if, these links may be helpful ,  and also try some of the local papers e.g.  as the issue is 'hot' recently due to the publication of the controversial (and IMHO flawed) study (by an NZ 'pro-choice' doctor) on the supposed mental health risks from abortion. IMHO, the situation in NZ is also somewhat similar to NZ in that most political parties don't want to 'rock the boat' and even Drs appear to be satisfied with the way it works now. Although there is an ongoing court case by an anti-abortion group and there was also a (failed) attempt to change the law to force parental notification by Judith Collins a opposition MP 1.5 years back. And I'd have to say, given the current political climate in NZ, I suspect any attempt to clamp down on abortions will probably fail. Nil Einne 17:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortions in New Zealand and Australia 

message: January 2006 CBS news poll:
*27% always legal, 15% greater restrictions, 50% only legal for rape/incest/life of the mother, 5% never legal 
**70% think there should be more restrictions than those currently in place (remember, every woman in the USA can get an abortion for any reason at any time in the pregnancy no matter what as long as she can pay for it - there are parental consent laws in some states for minor girls but the Supreme Court requires an easily accessible and streamlined judicial bypass and requires the judge to grant permission in all cases unless the girl indicates she is not voluntarily seeking the abortion)
**55% think that 95% of the legal abortions in the USA should be outlawed
**only 27% support current abortion law (always legal)
This data is very similar to the data in the Nov 2005 CNN poll.  Other polls that ask generic questions about keeping "Roe" or overturning it seem to mask the actual views of those being polled since few people have any real idea of what the current laws actually allow. When asked to be specfic, clear majorites want all or most abortions (all but rape, incest or life of the mother) outlawed.136.215.251.179 09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- Otherwise it will have to come out as unsourced information. --Quasipalm 13:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By now most editors realize that there is a link to all the recent US polling data in this section. That link has not been erased - I added a duplicate link. 136.215.251.179 14:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, recall that statistics are one of those tricky things when adding the results together isn't actually all that accurate. Something to do with them skewing the numbers to make it look prettier or some such. Anyway, do we have the text of the actual questions asked anywhere?--Tznkai 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Funny you should mention that - it appears that splitting up those who want to outlaw at least 95% of the abortions into a bunch of seemingly small % is quite tricky indeed!  I am sure you agree that this CBS poll and the CNN poll consistently show that a sound majority wants abortion to be illegal - as a minimum - in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. Most folks would have a hard time realizing that from this article.  Not sure why you wish to keep it that way.136.215.251.179 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to touch statistics and modify them in anyway. I also notice, conspicioulsly, CBS/CNN managed to confound legal/moral/ethical permission. Again. I prefer not to spoonfeed the reader though, so we're replicatating what the poll asked and published as exactly as possible.--Tznkai 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See the link in the article - it gives the wording. 136.215.251.179 16:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we make mention of the fact that this poll suggests 95% of Americans consider that abortion should remain legal?   It is easy to apply any point of view to statistics.  I am not convinced that push poll results have any place in this article. Proto t c 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we do not interp the results. The reader is perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions from the results.--Tznkai 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be a service to readers to alert them to the fact that a 55% think abortion should be legal but only in very rare circumstances, that another 15% think it should be more resticted than it is now but legal, and that 27% think the law should stay the way it is with abortion being legal for any reason, during all 9 months of pregnancy, even for sex selection. But I don't think most other editors would agree.  136.215.251.179 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Tznkai -- the reader can draw conclusions on her or his own, we don't need to get in the business of reworking poll results to highlight a single editor's POV.  --Quasipalm 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest polling information has been added 

message: Depending on how the article is worded, we may have to have one section for fetal pain in the 2nd and 3rd tirmesters and one for fetal pain in the 1st trimester. Be careful when editing this section.  The medical scientific and legalfact is that fetuses who experience pain can be aborted for any reason at all. IIf editors try to muddle that fact as if it were a mish mash of the unknown, then appropriate steps will need to be taken.136.215.251.179 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A source to help affirm such conclusiveness would be helpful, Goodandevil. -Kyd 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The article on fetal pain should address this, not the article on abortion, which is long enough already. Proto t c 12:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fetal Pain 

message: Wikipedia: "Ethics (from Greek ethikos) is the branch of axiology – one of the four major branches of philosophy, alongside metaphysics, epistemology, and logic – which attempts to understand the nature of morality; to define that which is right from that which is wrong. The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy."
IOW, morality is the basis upon which one determines what is ethical. Ethics is applied morality. e.g. "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral precept - and ethics is the application of that (and other) moral precepts to determine if one can morally kill in self-defense.  Not sure why some are so afraid of morality appearing on this page.  Being pro-choice is a moral view that excludes other moral views - just as pro-life is.
136.215.251.179 07:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Moral code as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears you're responding to my argument above -- although I think you misunderstand my point.  I'm not saying that morals and ethics can be seperated or that there is a clear delineation between the two -- I am saying that given the connotations and denotations of the two words, "ethics" is clearly a better word to use in this context.  See my comment above in e.c. if you want to know why.  --Quasipalm 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics and Morality can't be seperated

message: Are there definitive studies about what herbs are abortifacients? What is the basis for declaring them as such in this article? Are such herbs so important (relatively) to include images of them in this article? 136.215.251.179
:Read archives of this talk page, where both herbal abortion and images are discussed at length. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still in discussion. These are relevant, NPOV images, which are already available on Wikipedia. I'm just throwing out ideas to see what sticks. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to submit them in the "Pictures?" thread above. -Kyd 01:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically speaking, nutmeg has been used as an abortifacient since (if memory serves me correctly) Roman times - and is sufficiently effective that even some modern resources warn pregnant women to avoid consumption of large amounts of nutmeg in cooking/baking (I can try to dig those up if need be).  As far as I know, it was one of the most widely used...although technically nutmeg is a spice, not an herb ; ) DonaNobisPacem 07:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting infromation. We should see if we can find a source. Also, we should add something to the history of abortion section about Malay/Thai massage abortion practices, for a more global perspective. The current focus is on the Western history of abortion. -Kyd 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Herbs

message: If you go to the link in the article, the link  has two sets of data for this poll for the exact same date/question.  Need a better source for the poll since the person transcribing it to that website obviously has made an error. Then it can come back in.136.215.251.179
:Poll has been resourced from primary data from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life web site. Polling Report made an error (only to be expected given the volume of data with which they're dealing). See the "sources" section for an external link. -Kyd 19:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding good data. As you discovered, and as I mentioned above, the data was unclear at the previous link. 84.146.249.98 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Data for Pew Nov 05 poll is not credibly sourced

message: Hi, there appears to be a dispute brewing at Legalized abortion and crime effect that has spilled over into Steven Levitt.  I have started a discussion at Talk:Steven Levitt to discuss the dispute there, while I haven't gotten around to responding to the revert at Legalized abortion and crime effect.  Anybody here knowledgeable on these topics (esp. if you have a statistical/economics background), or at least willing to give an outside opinion?  Thanks, BanyanTree 14:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for input at [[Legalized abortion and crime effect]] 

message: In the opening paragraph, I changed it from reading "phenomenon in women" to "phenomenon in humans".  This was done because abortion involves two parties and because the immediate context refers to a species of mammal (gender having already been established by the word "female").  It was reverted by someone who claimed it was already a talked about and settled issue.  Talked about or not (I don't know), but there is still bias in this terminology.  I propose changing it as I did. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 19:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My version, + Kyd's spelling fix: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, this article focuses exclusively on the abortion of human pregnancy. As I recall its the pregnancy that is aborted, which isn't "in" the woman so much as occuring there. I just cut the male/female thing out since I didn't see the point, but thats just me.--Tznkai 20:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "phenomenon in '''women''' to phenomenon in '''humans'''

message: Earlier today I changed the wording in the "Definitions" section as follows (my changes in red).
Methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergency contraception, are not considered to be abortion; however, emergency contraception is generally considered a moral equivalent to abortion (and is often called abortion) by those who believe that human life begins at conception because implantation creates no per se fundamental change in the moral status of the one conceived.
My changes were NPOV changes because they gave explanation to what was unexplained.  The subtle non-neutral POV of leaving dissenting opinion unexplained, and therefore presumably ignorant, existed in the original wording.  The changed wording is describing why "those who believe that human life begins at conception" believe that "emergency contraception" (usually a misnomer because done after conception; etymology: contra + conception) is "generally considered equivalent to abortion", when the article just said it wasn't abortion.  The reason: it is the "moral equivalent ... because implantation creates no per se fundamental change in the moral status of the one conceived."  This is an accurate explanation meant to promote NPOV.  I won't go into a revert war, but this absolutely should be included.
Wikipedia NPOV policy and its official explanation state that:
# "articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly"
# "the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so"
# "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible"
Contrary to the one who reverted my change claiming "POV", I propose that my newer language in this instance goes further in upholding NPOV policy than does the original language, and it should be adopted. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 20:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it really is a different view of the definition, not just a part of some political battle.  The alternate view is already mentioned, rightly, but not the slightest reason is given for the difference in understanding regarding the definition itself.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 20:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clearer without your contribution -- although I appreciate your intent.  For example, "no per se fundamental change" ... huh?   And "moral status of the one conceived" -- I'm not sure what my "moral status" is and I'm a grown, educated adult.  Overall I think it just upped the word count but didn't add any real value.  --Quasipalm 22:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation was reverted, but should be adopted 

message: Just as an agreement between all of us, how about we shelve any changes to the emergency contraception section for a bit? We're clearly going around in circles and coming back in a week and discussing it then may be a better plan.--Tznkai 20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrap it entirely. The "Definitions" section is meant to be a place for defining terms -- nothing more, nothing less -- and something as sticky as this is just too tempting for editors on both sides to burden an otherwise stream-lined section with belaboured explanations of POV. And then start revert wars when they aren't pleased with the presentation of one or the other side. Move it to the abortion debate sub-section, or perhaps a new sub-section, under "Suggested effects: Emergency contraception," or, "Social issues: Refusal clauses," dealing with issue of doctors and pharmacists who refuse to perscribe the morning-after pill and birth control for the above reasons. -Kyd 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You've misunderstood me. I didn't suggest scrapping the Definitions section. After all, it was sort of my idea in the first place, to deal with intro-bloat. I'm just suggesting that we move all the discussion of EC elsewhere, because it's out of place in "Definitions," and might be less of a point of contention if it were presented within a better context. -Kyd 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, since my pro-life brethren seem content with the situation, I will defer (though reluctantly), but there has to be a place for explanation that doesn't get reverted for no good reason. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 00:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Talk_page#Formatting and stop using bullet points inappropriately - thanks! I have formatted your post per guidelines. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to table EC 

message: Below are plans for the new incidence section which I outlined a few days ago (which I am moving here):
:The former "induced abortion" section was haphazard. I have created a new section, "Incidence," to contain information about the numbers of and reasons for induced abortion (and, additionally, statistics on miscarriage). Now, we need to update the information on reasons for abortion, in addition to adding statistics on the number of abortions performed annually. In the meantime, the section can also serve as a place for information on factors which influence the rate of abortions, such as sex-selection, unsafe abortion, until the social issue steps in and covers them in full. Let's find and review potential sources here. -Kyd 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next on Agenda: Incidence 

message: I've rephrased a section inserted by ZimZum about weighing up the risks of an abortion. While it raised a valid point, it sounded a little bit POV to me:
The original was:
The risk of complications increases depending upon how far the pregnancy has progressed. Risks caused by the possible complications of a pregnancy| are subsequently avoided.
I rephrased it to:
The risk of complications occurring can increase depending on how far the pregnancy has progressed, but these risks may be counterbalanced by complications that would occur from carrying the pregnancy to term.
I don't know, I might be splitting hairs here, but ZimZum's edit didn't sound right. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it was POV, but your wording is certainly an improvement. I put back the link to complications of pregnancies which will save a curious reader some time. --ZimZum 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link - glad you approve of the wording. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  19:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight rewording of health risk balance 

message: :might in part be influenced by the political and religious affiliations of the parties behind it. - A minor suggestion, but I think that affiliations puts in a POV; one can be affiliated with a group generally considered on one side or another of the debate, but it is the beliefs of the person and the propensity of letting those beliefs affect results that is typically more relavent.  I suggest it be revised to 'might in part be influenced by political and religious beliefs of the parties behind it.' instead. --Lanzecki 09:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead and edit it yourself Be bold!--Tznkai 09:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Boldness is not generally well rewarded on contraversal topics, or so my long term lurking of this site has led me to believe.  But I'll roll the dice and see what happens.--Lanzecki 09:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am saddened by your anti-human approach. But please reread the NPOV policy and what it means before you make claims about what and what isn't POV. Str1977 13:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting how you label Hadam's comments "anti-human."  I don't think that the comment said that we should put other life above human life -- simply that humans often devalue other forms of life.  It's a fair comment and a good article suggestion, and it deserves more than your dismissive comment.  --Quasipalm 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Anthropocentrism is a valid factor in the abortion debate. This isn't a sociology article, however, and I don't think it's worth investing massive amounts of text to it. A Wikified reference somewhere in the article should suffice. -Kyd 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate Kyd's approach.  Anthropocentrism should be addressed.  But in sufficient detail to establish its true relevance.  What bothers me about this and all other coverage of the abortion issue is that it is predicated upon massive assumptions, and the bias of those assumptions acts as a lens through which all other information regarding the issue is distorted.  The truth is that the abortion issue is only an issue because the religious beliefs of some people in some societies give one particular type of biomass special status.  In purely biological and rational terms, a week-old fetus has no more consciousness, self-awareness, or other emergent properties that make humans human than my left elbow or a t-bone steak.  The unspoken assumption that fetuses are special because they have a spirit or soul undeniably predicates the entire issue!  Laws in societies which claim to have separation of Church and state, like the US, are blatantly compromised by these unspoken religious assumptions.  It is a massive violation of my first-amendment rights to make laws based on religious beliefs and values derrived thereof.  Yet, no inkling of this is mentioned in the article whatsoever.  To dismiss this with a pass mention of 'anthropocentrism' and to appeal to technicalities in the NPOV policy is tantamount to brushing the entire substance of the abortion issue under the rug.  I don't think burying our heads in the sand or bending over backwards for political correctness is what wikipedia is all about. Hadamhiram 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a time when the majority of people thought the world was flat.  The majority is often wrong.  While it is appropriate to acknowledge the majority perception, it violates the spirit of wikipedia which is centered upon truth to give erroneous perceptions credence no matter how popular they happen to be at the time.  As for conjuring images that the entire medical community of the modern world has somehow conspired to corrupt its own science with "nuanced politicized re-definitions" for the purpose of covertly defying current American cultural trends, that is well off the deep end and into tinfoil hat territory.  Ref. Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one; medical science, like all other sciences, adheres to those definitions which available evidence suggests are most likely true.Hadamhiram 18:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Affiliations" -> "beliefs"

message: I edited the pro-choice "core statement of belief" in the Abortion Debate section.  The pro-life statement is: "Is the fetus a human being with a fundamental right to life?" The pro-choice one used to be: "Should the state or the individual have choice on the matter of abortion?"  I changed the pro-choice statement to:  "Does a woman have the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy?"  I felt this statement is a clearer representation of pro-choice sentiment.  I felt the "state or the individual" part of the previous statement was confusing, especially since no pro-choicer I know advocates the state choosing to abort fetuses. 66.194.52.249 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your edit wasn't fully thought out for a few reasons.  1) You can be pro choice and still advocate for father-to-be consent laws, so the mother-to-be should not be singled out.  (In other words, "individual" is better wording than "woman.")  2) You mis-read the question, it's an "either / or" question -- the implication is that pro choice people believe that individuals should have the freedom to choose and that the state should not.  So, to answer the pro choice question in a pro choice fashion: the woman has the right to choose, the state does not.  Make sense?  -Quasipalm 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Statements of Belief 

message: *Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're using an anonymizing proxy server to access wikipedia, those usually get blocked--205.188.117.68 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're really not--205.188.117.68 03:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you really don't seem to understand... it's really easy to confirm this on my own--205.188.117.68 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You gave up awefully fast--205.188.117.68 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misinterpreting the ARIN output.  It tells you that ARIN doesn't manage that IP range, RIPE does. (ARIN = North America, RIPE = Europe, APNIC = Asia Pacific).  See http://www.ripe.net/ -- Curps 03:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, nevermind then--205.188.117.68 03:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous IP speculation 

message: This isn't an editorial dispute; it's an issue of the continued disruptive behavior of one user. And, anyway, that user is a no-show, even if he were interested in being cooperative (and, believe me, we've been trying for months, if my suspicions of sockpuppetry are correct). So, why are we being issued a class detention? -Kyd 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's unprotected now. howcheng  {chat} 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. -Kyd 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because one person CAN RUIN IT ALL!  For instance, I was disruptive on a bus going to Knott's for a school trip, so the bus had to turn around and everybody else didn't get to Knott's until noontime.  The joy of a single person ruining it for everybody else!  (Okay, not really: our prinicpal told us that he had done waht I had written above, I didn't do that, I'm a good kid). - Hbdragon88 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I noticed someone keeps trying to add "botched abortion" and "failed abortion" into the list of definitions.  I have been unable to verify that these are in fact "medical" terms, and instead seem to be neologisms created by whomever to help push their point of view.    http://www.medterms.com only lists the following for "abortion" medical terms: artificial abortion, habitual abortion, induced abortion, multiple abortion, recurrent abortion, spontaneous abortion, and therapeutic abortion.  Of those, artificial, induced and therapeutic all have the same meaning.  Habitual and recurrend both mean 3 or more miscarriages; multiple means 2 or more miscarriages.  Spontaneous is the same as a miscarriage. Peyna 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that makes the "botched abortion" and "failed abortion" miscarriages of miscarriage.  --Her girlfriend  00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Definitions" 

message: Well, the straw poll has conclusively proved two things to me: m:Polls are evil is re-confirmed, and the anons editing this page have no idea how to edit a wiki page. There are currently 2 support sections, 2 oppose sections, 1 empty comments section, and several links to shock images for no purpose that I can see. Suggest terminating this noble experiment in AGF. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTICE: Re-adding the trolling and shock image links previously posted under the guise of participating in a poll will be reverted as vandalism. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll cop to posting two of those links, basically, in an effort give people the option to see exactly what a "no" vote would be allowing into the article. Sorry. -Kyd 14:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea to try to clarify, but in this case it ended up being a case of Don't feed the trolls. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment and suggestion 

message: Might it be worth semi-protecting this page permanently? It seems to me that 99% of constructive edits come from people who have been Wikipedians for a while, and it seems to be a major vandalism target. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The level of vandalism is not high enough to consider protection. We usually don't semi-protect this article because the issues are usually borderline - extreme POV pushing is a content dispute, not vandalism. Futher, there is no "permanently semi-protect" at this time. George W. Bush is the closest thing we have, and it is vandalized on the order of once a minute when un semi'd. In other words, no. Does not even meet the level of vandalism required to semi, let alone consider keeping it semi-protected. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I know the issues with 84 are more content dispute than anything, I usually see vandalism regularly cropping up on here, and it seems we spend so much time dealing with extreme POV issues and vandalism that little is managed these days. Still, given the circumstances that semi-protection should be used in according to the Wikipedia guidelines, I see your point. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  11:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protecting 

message: I have reported User:Informativemiss for violation of WP:3RR here. Please make any additions you feel necessary. Natgoo 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I assumed incorrectly, but the anon's reverts were in exactly the same style as yours, and contained the same material. There is no consensus to alter the community's decision to not include links to shock sites. Please stop insisting. Natgoo 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]]