BCSWowbagger

If you have a message for me, please add it in a new section, with a new header, at the bottom of the page. I will respond to you on *your* talk page, unless you specifically request otherwise. Thanks!

Welcome

Hello, BCSWowbagger, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ardenn 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering if the IP you state on your userpage is static; that is, does it stay the same always? As if it changes to another person and they vandalise, you may be blamed for it. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia, Mopper ^Speak! 06:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow... somehow, I missed this message. Sorry. If you're still looking: yes, as far as I know, my IP is static and unique to me. If I find otherwise, I will note that in this log. Thanks! --BCSWowbagger 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Howdy howdy howdy. I finally gave in and registered here because typos and bad grammar in articles continue to burn my eyes. Best of luck with your wikiing. (I got a kick out of your "GAK!" edit -- just don't be surprised when somebody inevitably deletes it with extreme prejudice.) ~ CZeke 20:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. They weren't decided by consensus. You interpreted the consensus as supporting your edits. That was a highly questionable interpretation. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)}

No problem. The reason I use a different name is thanks to Wikipedia's technological limitations. Calling myself jtdirl caused problems with some users (I won't go into it here. It is a long story). I have been using FearEireann for two years now. The reason I can't move the a/c over fully to that name is because I have long exceeded the maximum number of edits that could be moved to a new name. So I'd have to give up my editing history, number of edits, etc, if I started a new a/c as FE. The only solution is to use a pipe (i.e., a different name to the actual original name on the a/c.) Sorry if it confused you. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)}

WikiHugs

I am not the one who founded WPAbortion — that was GTBacchus. After all, he's the first name on the "Participants" list. :) Patient I might be, but, unfortunately, it's hard to stay grounded sometimes. Especially when I'm on my own. But I appreciate your kind, considerate words, and everything you've done around the project. -Severa (!!!) 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the note on my Talk page, and sorry for the delay. Hope to be back as a regular editor when I've got more time to dedicate to Wikipedia fully. Until then, keep up the great work! -Severa (!!!) 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

John Edwards

I caused no trouble to the John Edwards article, he has stated that he is against gay marriage. 75.3.50.41 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro Life, Opposing War

If I present you with organizations that are pro life and anti-war, would you allow war to stay in the pro life article? 75.3.50.41 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can see from your page that you are a good guy. My question for you though is this, basically, I want to know what your stance is on war and how it is effecting your view on whether or not it should be included in the pro-life article. 75.3.50.41 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the Catholic Church as being pro life and opposing war? 75.3.50.41 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of that, but there are many Catholic organizations which oppose war and abortion, maybe the Pro-life movement could be sourced to be specifically against the War in Iraq?

Also, I am curious as to if you are Democrat or a Republican? I am a Democrat. 75.3.50.41 21:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the Democrats for Life of America? 75.3.50.41 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Try this one Consistent Life Ethic 75.3.50.41 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Me

If you are telling them to block me, do not tell them I vandalized the John Edwards, Marty Meehan, or George W. Bush talk articles.

All those edits were valid edits. 75.3.50.41 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia paragraph in the Marty Meehen article was something that was decided on by a majority of editors that it did not beolong in the article. Someone readded it on there own and without putting any sources in. 75.3.50.41 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

is PAS pseudoscience?

...just a note regarding your question: "there's no objection to making it clear that PAS is pseudoscience, right?"--i don't really think it's a pseudoscience, exactly. while the technical lines of demarcation between pseudoscience and popular psychology are not so clear, i think it's fair to say that "pseudoscience" is pejorative, and pop psych not so much. for example, on wikipedia, concepts categorized under pseudoscience include: astrology, ghost-hunting, The Flat Earth Society, fortune-telling, and Bigfoot. concepts included under the category "Popular psychology" include: empty nest syndrome, commitment phobia, survivor guilt, and emotional intelligence. PAS is not exactly occult or paranormal! :-) i think it belongs in the pop psych/self-help category. i posted a note to that effect on the PAS talkpage, and changed the category from pseudo to pop. Cindery 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost saves

I saw your question about lost saves on the Birth control talk page. I will sometimes have to reload a page after saving it to view my changes - the changes were saved, but the server was so slow that the "refreshed" page displayed after saving was actually the old version. Does that make sense? Is it possible this is what's happening to you? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, a second theory, then: I also sometimes get the message Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in. Then the page is still in Preview mode, and I have to scroll down to the bottom and hit the save button again. But if you closed the window before it loaded, you wouldn't see the "loss of session data" message. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar in recognition of the patience, kindness, and understanding you have displayed toward new users (and as a new user yourself), and for the polite, reasoned input you have given to WikiProject Abortion and related articles. Severa (!!!) 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Barnstars were for my work on the article, Abortion, not WikiProject Abortion. WP-Abortion itself was founded by GTBacchus in July. I'm also glad to note, from your mock Oscar acceptance speech, that you're a fellow Trekkie...erm, Trekker. Whichever you prefer. :-) -Severa (!!!) 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WPAbortion

Hello, BCSWowbagger. As a member of WPAbortion, just thought I'd take a moment to alert you to the recent creation of a project Watchlist and Noticeboard, which may both help you keep up-to-date. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

I'm very sorry to see you leave WikiProject Abortion. You stated that you saw "eye-to-eye with exactly no one," but, on the contrary, I found you to be an extremely level-headed contributor. People aren't always going to agree on a subject — especially not on abortion — but, when editors of all stripes participate in a measured, thoughtful discussion, it can only help to better consensus and improve Wikipedia overall. I will greatly miss your presence, but, I can completely understand how scare time can be! We're all volunteers here and I truly appreciate that you were able to give as much time to Wikipedia as you did!

My thought was turned toward you today when I discovered the origin of your username whilst reading a certain book. And, with that, I'll leave you to your mission of being pleasant to everyone in the universe, in alphabetical order. That is why you'll be gone, right? ;). -Severa (!!!) 11:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

File:PartialBirth Method HouseDebateProLife.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:PartialBirth Method HouseDebateProLife.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:PartialBirth_Method_HouseDebateProLife.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:PartialBirth_Method_HouseDebateProLife.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

abortion debate talk

Hi! I noticed you commented on the abortion talk page. The debate has evolved a bit and I'm not sure if you've had time to read it all. Did you read my comment posted just above yours (about linguistics/etymology)? Utopial (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• The thing is that the scientific classification terms (as opposed to medical terminology) are direct from Latin/Greek - not just derived. Medical terminology isn't strict and allows many terms. I think prenatal human would be a comparable term to human or female human - it's a medical term and doesn't dehumanise. Basically, set human as the base and add an adjective such as male, female, adult, prenatal. That is consistent. Woman is a bit too colloquial, which is reinforced when you read how it came about etymologically - I think female is more neutral. What do you think? Utopial (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew / Mercy

Hi,

Thank you for being so understanding RE: The Kate Mulgrew/Mercy page screw up, I did not mean to delete anyone's pages, all I meant was to show people a direct link on that page to the Mercy TV series page, I did not mean to delete the whole page, so sorry about that. Am new here and am just started to get the hang of things. So thanks for being so understanding in this matter.

Glad to see you're a Voyager fan, I myself was never a Star Trek fan but after watching Voyager I become hooked and it was mostly due to Kate Mulgrew as Janeway, I started to re-search her career and looked at some of her other work and the reason I started doing her Wikipedia page was to pay tritube to her work. Just re-watching "Year Of Hell" at the moment, a great 2 parter don't you think?

Thanks once again :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford89 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Angola

I have no dog in this race, as the saying goes. I was simply reverting what seemed to me to be questionable anonymous edits, removing referenced information. However, I did not examine, and do not intend to examine, what the sources say. Everything you said on my talk page would be better placed on the article talk page and the matter sorted out there. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion sources

Hi there,

I have mostly been away from Wikipedia for the past few days, but I just wanted to say that I saw your recent posts to the talk page. I noticed that you have proposed adding several sources to the note at the bottom. I would hope that you could hold off for now. The purpose of my addition was to try to first isolate the best sources and then look for whatever they say. Could you confirm that that's what you did? If not, could you provide a list of the Philosophy/Social Science/Law dictionaries/encyclopedias/textbooks (as appropriate) that are either generally considered the most authoritative? I have no idea what the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy is, but I don't think we should be adding every single dictionary under the sun to the article. Unless it qualifies as a major one, I think we should be careful about adding new sources (WP:WEIGHT concerns and all).

Best, NW (Talk) 07:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, NW. I have no problem holding off for a few days, collecting thoughts, and narrowing the number of sources to include to the best-in-field. In the case of statutes, I'm thinking 7-10 definitions representing the broad range of abortion law (from "the killing of an unborn child" to "the termination of a pregnancy") is what I should aim for. Does that sound right? With law generally, I seek to parallel the depth, scope, and quality of your work with the medical texts.

FWIW, I agree with you on the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. I don't think that's a high-quality source, and I'm not sure it's appropriate for the Note. However, I left it, with its full context, on my list only because it is already in Note 1, under "other dictionaries." I didn't add it; it's been there for a while.

Thanks for all your work on this difficult and delicate article. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue I have with listing statutes is that we are, intentionally or not, cherrypicking to suit our own interpretation on what is most representative of the statutes rather than selecting from secondary or tertiary references. I would have no problem with using authoritative law textbooks, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, but I think we should avoid using statutes in general. The primary reason for this is because a lot of the statutes we are considering are going to be written by state legislatures, which are rather infamous for being totally ignorant in cases of medicine and science (e.g. [1]). I would much rather trust a professor of gender studies and law at Rice or Baylor writing in their area of expertise over the Texas legislature. NW (Talk) 18:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't figure out who added all the resources to the Abortion talk page comments. Was it you? Dr. Jux (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Then work picked up and suddenly I didn't have time to Wiki anymore. Which was a shame. I hope things work out over there, but it won't be thanks to my contributions.  :-( --BCSWowbagger (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro-abortion violence listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pro-abortion violence. Since you had some involvement with the Pro-abortion violence redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. jps (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Pro-abortion violence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pro-abortion violence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-abortion violence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BCSWowbagger. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)