Novel compound

Welcome

Hello Novel compound, and welcome to 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

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay 07:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This word "mentor", I do not think it means what you think it means

I knew at least two prominent members of the local antisemitic/racist groups on a first-name, welcome in the house, basis back where I grew up in West Tennessee; that does not make this fact "notable" in any way, nor does that mean that they were in any sense my mentors. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations that simulcast on AM and FM has been nominated for discussion

Category:Radio stations that simulcast on AM and FM, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Heartbeat bill" edit warring

Your recent editing history at Heartbeat bill shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This warning is in regards to the addition of Clair Culwell and the use of the term "abortion survivor". It seems you are knowingly engaged in an edit war despite a talk page discussion. Nice4What (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Be advised that Heartbeat bill and other pages related to abortion, broadly construed, are under general sanctions. Editors are limited to one revert in a 24-hour period on a single page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nice4What (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Query

Is this you logged out? El_C 01:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Through the talk page discussion, the IP has been against the use of the term "abortion survivor" due to a lack of neutrality as compared to User:Novel compound who has insisted on adding the term. Nice4What (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, El_C. 188.176.129.120 is pushing a non-neutral POV, and I am not. Novel compound (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. El_C 03:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I realize now that I conflated the revert to be like NC's reverts, when it was in fact the opposite. El_C 03:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Continuous edit warring

Despite being given warnings, you continue edit warring as seen here on Gianna Jessen and here on Melissa Ohden. I suggest self-reverting these edits, continuing to discuss on the talk page discussions you've already contributed to, and maybe explaining that you know your edits were could be in violation of WP:1RR (and arguably, WP:NPOV) at the edit warring noticeboard. Nice4What (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Please figure out whether there is consensus for that usage (or variations therein) before adding it to multiple articles, Novel compound. While discussion is ongoing, the convention is for the status quo ante to remain in place. Thanks in advance. El_C 04:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ohmigosh, El_C; Nice4What has been pushing a non-neutral POV by repeatedly deleting the neutral word "survivor" from 3 articles. In two of the three articles, presence of the word "survivor" was the status quo – it was not added by me – and Nice4What has the gall to claim that my restoration of the status quo constitutes edit warring. Speaking of ongoing discussion, 188.176.129.120 posted a comment that was supportive of removing the neutral phrase "abortion survivor" at 21:48, and Nice4What declared that a "consensus" had been reached only two minutes later. Novel compound (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"Abortion survivor"

Here is an article you might find interesting that might guide you in the debate about whether or not "abortion survivor" is a neutral term. To quote:

An abortion is performed with the intention of ending a pregnancy, so there are no survivors. What the bill’s sponsors seem to be targeting are the rare situations in which a woman decides to have abortion at the later stages in her pregnancy because it can’t proceed healthily for her, the fetus, or both.

I doubt this will change your mind, you seem a bit stubborn and hostile to other editors. However, I just want to highlight that there is criticism towards "abortion survivor". I think it's now beyond common sense to question if it's neutral (as if the fact that the term is only used by anti-abortionists didn't make it obvious enough). Nice4What (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a teachable moment. I'm glad you brought up Annalisa Merelli's article; it was brought to my attention months ago, because it is factually incorrect.

Merelli's article says "the bill peddles the false narrative that abortions happening later in pregnancies could result in live babies left to die by physicians who fail to provide care that would otherwise keep them alive and healthy. This is not a practice that exists". Merelli is apparently unaware of – or worse, wants to suppress – the facts about registered nurse Jill Stanek.

After Stanek was told that an infant who had survived an abortion had been taken to a "soiled utility room" and left to die, she comforted the infant in her arms until it died. After Stanek complained about the policy of not providing medical care to infants who had survived abortions, the hospital stopped using the soiled utility room, and created a "comfort room" in which viable infants who survived abortions were left to die. After Stanek continued to oppose the policy, and took pictures of the "comfort room" and distributed them, she was fired. This experience is what spurred her to support Illinois' Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Although Barack Obama (an Illinois state senator at the time) opposed the Illinois Act, during the 2008 presidential campaign his position evolved; he said that had he been a member of the U.S. Senate at the time, he "would have been completely in, fully in support of" the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was identical to the Illinois act, and received unanimous approval in the U.S. Senate in 2002.

How often did this particular hospital's comfort room get used? Stanek's former employer typically performs only 15 to 20 labor-induced abortions out of more than 4,000 deliveries each year. Of the 15 to 20, only possibly four or five babies are born alive.

Merelli also seems to be in denial that the governor of Virginia recently stated that withholding such medical care should be an acceptable practice, if so decided by "a discussion between the physicians and the mother."

Annalisa Merelli goes on to say, "An abortion is performed with the intention of ending a pregnancy, so there are no survivors." What kind of logic is that? The Easter Sunday bombing of St. Anthony's Shrine was performed with the intention of killing everyone inside, so by Merelli's twisted logic, there are no survivors. I'm sorry to inform you; there are in fact survivors of that and similar bombings.

I doubt these facts will change your mind. You seem very stubborn, and hostile to editors who try to get you to incorporate facts into your worldview. Now that your cited criticism of the term "abortion survivor" has been shown to be factually incorrect and illogical, it's beyond common sense that "abortion survivor" is the most unbiased, neutral and straightforward way to refer to a person who has survived an abortion. You continue to display incredible bias when you promote the fiction that Gianna Jessen, Amy Charlton, Sarah Smith, Ana Rosa Rodriguez, Heidi Huffman, Christelle Morrison, Melissa Ohden, Claire Culwell and others did not survive the attempts to end their lives. As such, you have no business editing articles relating to abortion. Novel compound (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

---

@Novel compound: I've noticed you've been actively editing again. I would suggest continuing to make your case on Talk:Heartbeat bill if you want to keep discussing. I don't think your "Abortion survivors" category will be saved if you're accusing people who want to delete it of having an abortion rights bias. I hope you can constructively participate in reaching a consensus, but you behavior of making strong accusations about others isn't going to be effective in my opinion.

I noticed you replied with a lengthy response, but my point was that the term is contested. I didn't expect you to sling "facts" and "logic". If you want to see another example, take this article which speaks of abortion "survivors" with scare quotes. Nice4What (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)