User talk:Severa/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Bye 2 Infobox proposal 3 News story 4 Abortion terminology 5 re:Stressed Out 6 Because 7 Abortion in Israel 8 Watchlist? 9 Re: Assessments II 10 abortion laws in portugal and spain 11 Merle Terlesky 12 ABC link 13 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 14 Maria Severa 15 Names in Iberia/South America 16 Inappropriate Deletion 17 Please Explain Reverts

Bye

Sorry to see you go... maybe we'll see you back here if/when things quiet down? MastCell 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kyd... why no email address at least? :( KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

I've replied on my talk page to keep topic discussion together - please suggest the parameters you were thinking of including and I'll happily create a draft infobox as a working proposal for others to comment on :-) David Ruben ^Talk 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

News story

I'm a reporter working on a story idea about ideologically charged Wikipedia pages. Those that fit the bill include: George W. Bush's page, the page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the page on The Armenian Genocide and pages on Creationism and Evolution. I see that you’ve worked on the Abortion page. I was wondering if you might be willing to talk to me about the challenges of keeping pages like this up and unlocked. If you have any thoughts on tracking down the right person to talk to for a story like this, please shoot them my way. You can get me here: matt.phillips@wsj.com

Thanks and take care, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattPhillips33 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 February 2007.

Abortion terminology

I am sorry for the first time, but still, I think it makes more since to call it a baby because it is, it is not my own personal opinion, isn't that what everyone calls it, a fetus is a baby and using the word baby is more comprihenisible. CamelHammel 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

re:Stressed Out

Thank you very much for your words of encouragement. In case it wasn't clear, I never intended to leave wikipedia, or even WikiProject Abortion. I was just stressed over some recent edits of fetus, and decided to ignore that page for a bit. I felt like interpersonal conflict and past history between me and another user were getting in the way of progress. I'm still not happy with the current state of a few articles, but its better for my personal wellbeing to ignore the user and avoid the emotional stress. Thanks again for your comment.-Andrew c 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still at the point where I personally do not want to deal with Ferrylodge, so I personally could not be helpful in a RfC. Also, he has posted a reply to you on my talk page, which was unwelcomed and clearly on the wrong talk page (his comment, not yours).-Andrew c 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not really something I wanted to face, either, especially not alone. I tried the whole avoidance thing, too, but it didn't really pan out. The main issue is in the pattern of editing articles, so ignoring the issue will only magnify it. User conduct was another concern — especially the following-around and uncooperative comments - but my concern was Wikipedia policies and articles. -Severa (!!!) 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do as much as you can, and don't fret. No need to resolve this immediately, ok? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Because

KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Abortion in Israel

(I'm responding here because it's been a couple of days since your comment. Normally I responde on my own talk page.)

Thank you for your help with the abortion in Israel article. I saw that there were several other abortion by country articles and thought that Israel's partially legalized approach would be of interest to many. I'm curious as to why you removed the citation templates I used, however. Is there a policy/guideline against using {{cite}}? I quite like it.

Regarding public opinion in Israel, I'm not surprised you couldn't find any data. The topic is not high on the public agenda. There are one or two anti-abortion lobbies, "Efrat" providesfinancial aid and "Lilach", an organization I'm less familiar with, has a website at BeadChaim.org.il (be'ad chayim means "for life" in Hebrew). The name "lilach" seems to be,not a reference to the flower, but a contraction of "for me" and "for you" in Hebrew. The site seems primarily education-oriented, although I'm not certain how accurate their information is.

Pro-choice advocacy in Israel is equally rare. The two parties most likely to be involved are the recently-defunct Shinui, a socially liberal capitalist with a secular agenda, and Meretz, a liberal socialist left-wing party with the most notable "women's rights" agenda in the Israeli political opinion. Still, the issue is rarely addressed, and when it is, there's little media coverage. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist?

Hey, Severa! I've only been an editor for about 5 months, can you explain how I can add the stuff you put on my talk page to my, uh, Wikipedia experience? Thanks! Joie de Vivre 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied at my talk. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Assessments II

I was going by the MILHIST criteria, which is the same as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. And if the second article has issues with OR, then it might not meet the accuracy criteria for B-Class.

Oh, and you're welcome.--Rmky87 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus and I have been the only ones assessing the abortion-related articles. Due to the volume of the task, I, at least, have been refering to the standardized criteria more loosely than other assessors might (i.e., "going with my gut"). :-) -Severa (!!!) 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

abortion laws in portugal and spain

i would like to inform that fortunately the map abortion laws around the world is wrong now!

-)

Portugal and spain are blue: the abortion is legal on demand!

in 11 february 2007 things have change in portugal: almost 59% of the portuguese voted YES, so that weman have the right to choose. No more trips to england and spain to make a legal and safe abortion!

verify in any portuguese newspaper, e.g. http://www.publico.clix.pt/, "aborto" or "IVG - Interrupção Voluntária da Gravidez"

thanks!

Marta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martaccorreia (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

so, we meet again!:) the problem with the abortion referendum is that it failed for lack of turnout, less than 50% of the registered electors casted valid votes. Opinion polls estimated the overall support for the YES to be aroung 60%+. The previous referendum had failed two-fold: lack of cast ballots and NO majority on the cast ones. there is a certain apathy in Portugal this days towards politics that explains this. Interestingly, and because Portuguese abroad can only vote for the presidential and parliamentary elections, there was a group of portuguese in Barcelona that protested for being "prevented" from voting. Given this state of afairs the prime minister José Socrates decided that "the people had spoken" and it would use it's legislative powers, which are based on the majority PS holds in Parliament,which together with the support from the left-wing PCP and Left Bloc make out about 60% of deputies, to enact legislation that would de-criminalize abortion. This laws still have to run the gauntlet of assembly approval and presidential veto, though I don't think Cavaco Silva, the president, will oppose them, given the broad consensus among deputies and it's usually practical approach to politics. Jeez that was long....

On the Severa issue. She might have or not a family name, afaik she was from a very poor background and rose to some prominence from the singing and later the film about her. Fado was very heavily promoted by the estado Novo as "real portuguse culture" so she probably got more fame after long dead than through life. I need to reseach this, I could be wrong. Now, the name... her fist name would me Maria Severa, sort of like Jean-Michel, Maria is a very common name so most Marias end up being known for their 2nd name (Severa in this case), because Maria is seen as a sort of walking cane for the 2nd name and are usually also somewhat catholic inspired such as Maria da Anunciação (annunciation), Maria da Liberdade (Liberty), Maria da Purificação (purification) and so on. this does not happen when Maria is the second name, as in Ana Maria or in the queen's name Dona(Mistress) Maria. I hope this makes sense, further questions are welcome Galf 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just one more, since u are Canadian (Oh Canada....) and I'm Portuguese, what is your take on Nelly Furtado? Galf 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merle Terlesky

User talk:209.89.134.26 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Thank you for experimenting with the page Merle Terlesky on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -Severa (!!!) 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC

You left this message on my IP page, and I confess that I'm very confused. I made an edit that I explained the rationale for on the talk page, not a test. As I stated in the talk page, I came on the page by surfing from link to link in Wikipedia, but the paragraph I deleted I think *should* be deleted, and I'd appreciate it not being marked as a "test." --209.89.134.26 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ABC link

It is too conclusive, but that's how its predominantly referred to by pro-lifers, and pro-choice / media responses sometimes label it as such in their critiques. It clarifies immediately they are one in the same; and as such I think it puts ABC link in the appropriate context, rather than ABC link making anything conclusive. If a women comes across this I want her search for "ABC link" to come up with Wikipedia results as well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do, great suggestion and thanks... hopefully soon it will officially be a good article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Human dignity Choose Life Inc. American Victims of Abortion Theology of the Body Ayn Rand Institute Casual sex Campaign Life Coalition Priests for Life Roe effect Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Diary of an Unborn Child Joel Brind Constitutional theocracy Lethbridge West Attorney General v. X Soranus National Lawyers Association Queensland Right to Life

Cleanup Hodgson v. Minnesota National Organization for Women Naturalism (philosophy) Merge Knights of Columbus Mutilation Sex selection Add Sources Apologetics Abortion and Evangelical Christians Pro-life feminism Wikify One People's Project Fisherian runaway Nacelle Expand Misandry Make-A-Wish Foundation Oriel Chambers

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Maria Severa

did you name yourself after her ? Galf 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Severa is the feminine form of severe, a feature one could easely attribute to Snape (yes, I read Harry Potter too) She was a Fado singer in the 1800's possibly the first one to be "famous" unfortunatly she has no article yet and something tells me she would be deemed not notable enough. Anyway, have you read Censorship in Portugal yet? I heard it's a great article! really, I did. actually it's one in need of a native english speaker, preferebly one with no insights on the subject, to proofread and spot any weird stuff. All help is welcome, comments on the talk page :-) Galf 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One other thing i just remembered, you are interested in the abortion debate, I added the final tally and to the Portuguese abortion referendum of 2007, minor corrections, .01% more on the YES side. Galf 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The translation u asked fore is there :) she did have a last name and something else to do other than sing...Galf 11:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Names in Iberia/South America

you are right about the family names, usually 2, from mother and father, in PT mother 1st father 2nd. in ES its the oposite, father 1st mother last. Sometimes in PT at least last 2 names from both mother and father are used, so 4 surnames, add 2 1st names and married name and u can add with no less than 7 names....names in royalty can be even worse, Maria Francisca Isabel Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Paula de Herédia de Bragança is the daughter of D. Duarte Pio, the heir of the Portuguese throne, and that is her maiden name! Galf 19:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Deletion

Why did you revert a proper contribution found here [[1]]

80.4.39.7 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume the deletion was an error and will undo it shortly. The edit you deleted is from a cited published journal paper so the deletion does not make any sense other than being an error.

80.4.39.7 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have made a large number of edits elsewhere since reverting this proper contribution but you have chosen not to answer here. Why is that? You reverted an edit citing a published journal paper. Please explain your actions. Good faith has been assumed but the failure to answer together with the fact of numerous edits since being asked to explain shows bad faith.

80.4.39.7 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response here [[2]]

I hope you do not mind the observation that none of the above appears justification for deleting an edit. Especially when:-

• that has been done without comment
• an experienced editor who first reverted acknowledged he had done that in error and recognised the validity of the edit
• an experienced editor like you could have easily edited the entry - if that is possible - which seems difficult as it already seems to be part of a summary of a 5-6000 word journal paper
• when another anon whose ID has the appearance of a sock-puppet and who just as you have done once, had been repeatedly reverting the edit

Further, this is not a large verbatim quote. The extent of the quote is also appropriate in the circumstances. It does not violate any copyright and is well within accepted academic standards internationally.

There is no flow of an article to break as it was in a section specifically existing to set out the findings of relevant studies. There appears to be no WP:NPOV issue as the study it references is one of a number listed and it is a journal paper being cited.

If you feel that paraphrasing is appropriate for something that is already a paraphrase of a 5-6000 or so word paper then you are welcome to edit. If you might be kind enough to acknowledge that wholesale deletion of the edits of others is not a constructive action in building an encyclopedia that could assist resolution. Perhaps on this occasion it was an oversight.

With respects to your strongly held views, there appears nothing contentious about citing the conclusions of a journal paper especially when this is amongst the citations of other journal papers. There was also nothing to indicate anyone thought this was contentious - you, for example, simply deleted the edit without explanation. Hopefully you will agree that makes it impossibly difficult to know what objection anyone else may have.

Regarding your comments about dropping everything, your deletion took place half a day ago. You have been editing throughout the day. There is no issue of dropping everything. Further, if you undertake a destructive action, you need to consider explaining yourself as a matter of courtesy and priority. Thank you for now having done so.

I will revert your earlier reversion and may I suggest you edit the contribution in line with how you see the entry as an appropriate form of encyclopedic entry. I may have more trouble doing so than you and you appear to indicate you can see how that can be done. Accordingly, by your own account, you appear to be suggesting a superior position to carry out the task, and having deleted the entry once seem to have strong views in the matter and hence an incentive to attempt the task.

80.4.39.7 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Severa, obviously, but one issue has to do with the undue weight provision of the neutral point-of-view policy. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, despite its bland title, is a fringe journal which is not indexed on MEDLINE (a red flag in terms of scientific validity). The edit which was reverted was constructed to imply that the J Am Phys Surg article "rebutted" the Cochrane finding, when in fact the Cochrane finding carries much more scientific weight. Again, I'm not Severa and I apologize for jumping in on her talk page, but those are my 2 cents. MastCell 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're perfectly welcome to jump in, MastCell, especially since I was unaware that there was a concern over the journal. Admittedly, I have a lot of "stray" articles on my watchlist, and Vaccine controversy is one of them. Basically, it's an article on which I only monitor for test edits and such, not an article in which I have a great investment content-wise, because it's not a subject with which I'm especially familiar. 80.4.39.7, perhaps you should go ask User:86.151.6.36 [3] and User:86.147.238.200 [4] why they reverted your addition, as they were the ones who reverted you first, and it was their reversions which prompted mine. I have a feeling I've simply stumbled in off my watchlist and gotten caught in the crossfire of a content dispute between you and those other two anon editors.

The three-paragraph quotation was added into the article by 80.4.39.7 for the first time on 21:13, 18 February 2007. Generally, if the content of an article has been stable for a period of time, it falls to the editor who wishes to see a new addition to the article to build consensus supporting that change — not for other editors to defend the stable, long-standing version. My reference to contention, I thought, would be self-evident, given the "controversy" in the title of "Vaccine controversy." What I meant to say, basically, was that topics which are the subject of dispute generally require more discussion and agreement between users to be written effectively, so perhaps it would be a good idea to take your proposal to Talk:Vaccine controversy and see what the other editors there think. That way you could work contructively with other users to reach an arrangement which would be agreeable to all the parties involved.

I see patience as a basic matter of courtesy, 80.4.39.7. I, like many editors, try to balance my time on Wikipedia between many things. It is one think to ask for an explanation, but, to demand it repeatedly demonstrates an unfamiliarity with WP:COOL, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. I understand that you're new to Wikipedia, so you might have been genuinely unfamiliar with these policies, but I recommend that read check them out, as they will greatly help you in dealing with other editors on Wikipedia. —Severa (!!!) 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the ex post facto analysis of your actions in reverting is helpful, it does not explain why you reverted instead of editing a valid contribution to further the development of the encylopaedia. It seems you may also be going off topic. Forgive me if I have this wrong but it would seem to be you User:Severa who has to explain your actions in the light of the new information from User:Ferrylodge here [[5]]. Assume good faith only applies to the extent there is no evidence to the contrary. Here there is evidence to the contrary. It looks very much like that especially in the light of User:Ferrylodge's information.

It also seems User:Ferrylodge would be justified in posting to WP:ANI for his own protection.

He was blocked after User:Severa failed to respond to requests to explain her reversions. Here she has done exactly the same thing. However, she appears to have done so after what appear to be two sockpuppet editors reverted my edit. This then makes hers the third and it is this that raises an inference that she was setting me up for a 3RR block by refusing to answer and hoping I would revert three times in 24 hours and that the same occurred with User:Ferrylodge.

Not only that, but she uses the same excuse here that she used with User:Ferrylodge, that she takes time making her edits - but her edit history shows she was editing for half a day elsewhere. This also shows she had plenty of time to have added an explanation for her actions when she carried out her reversion and the fact she did not raises the inference that was because she could not do so and further supports the inference of setting another editor up for a block. And the evidence shows it would have been difficult for her to justify a reversion of the edit. She reverted an entire edit which was a quote from a published journal paper. The only proper action to edit it would be difficult as it is a verbatim already published quote which was already a precis of what the journal article reported.

User:Mastcell's intervention is to attack the messenger, he must know science works by rebuttal. The Cochrane Collaboration have failed to answer the criticism. The journal that published this damning criticism of Cochrane has a mission statement to the effect that it is there to seek out and destroy unscientific BS like that published by Cochrane. The silence shows it is BS. Medline can be pretty slow adding journals to their index and there can be little doubt they might be a bit slower in some cases than in others, if you get the drift. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has a readership many times greater than most of the medical journals existing. There are a vast number of medical journals and most of them cater to fringe medical interests with vastly smaller readership. So let's dismiss all medical journal articles cited in Wikipedia with a proven number of subscribers of less than, say, 3500. So if you cannot prove a journal has that number of subscribers, you cannot cite its papers. Sounds good to me.

80.4.39.7 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of having some relation to User:86.151.6.36 and User:86.147.238.200? Neither of those is my IP address and I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith and not make accusations without due cause. Like I said, I drifted in off of my watchlist, saw something which had been reverted twice by two different users, and figured that it was a clear-cut case of 2/1. On a daily basis, I revert a lot of things which turn up on my watchlist, including vandalism, test edits, poorly-formatted additions, etc., and a lot of the time it's on articles on which I don't have a personal involvement. If habit makes for haste, then I'm sorry, perhaps I should try to consider each situation individually instead of running on autopilot. However, I've only reverted you once, in comparison to the other editors, who together have reverted you twice. I have no intention of reverting you again, because I'm not a regular contributor to Vaccine controversy, I'm not really familiar with the history of the article or the background of your conflict with the other two editors. Again, I would recommend you take your proposal to Talk:Vaccine controversy, so that you can work with other editors of that article to reach a version agreeable to everyone. Working in conjunction with other users and building consensus on a matter is a good way to prevent back-and-forth changes like those of yourself (80.4.39.7) and 86.151.6.36/86.147.238.200. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful toward you regarding your concerns for Vaccine controversy. I think the points you are raising here would be better raised on Talk:Vaccine controversy, where someone more familiar with the issue might be able to address them.

Per delays in response, WP:COOL states, "Take it slow. There is no time limit for a discussion." I find it sometimes helps to wait until I'm in as calm, measured of a mindset as I can be before approaching certain situations, so I ask that other editors please excerise patience.

Actually, Ferrylodge was blocked by User:InShaneee, who took it upon himself to block Ferrylodge for 3RR, acting completely independently of me (as he confirmed in this post). I devoted a substantive amount of time to responding to Ferrylodge's concerns on Talk:Abortion (see Archive 26) so it's not like I can be faulted for refusing to reply to him. The disagreement between you and I, 80.4.39.7, is completely independent of disagreements between myself and Ferrylodge, so I ask that you consider both of the situations objectively and as being isolated from one another. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Explain Reverts

As with the previous comment, I have also been waiting for an explanation of a revert. See here. This has happened many times to me, where Severa has reverted but without explanation. If a person is too busy to explain when a revert is made, then the revert should be postponed until an explanation can be given. Here is the pertinent Wikipedia policy:

"Explain reverts

"When a revert is necessary, it is very important to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.

"Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, 'rv page blanking'). Because of the lack of non-verbal communication online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars.

"If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page."

Thanks.Ferrylodge 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I explained the problem with the "Feticide" link in this post, and, aside from reiterating what I have already said, I don't know how much more by way of an explanation I can over you. Also, in this post, you stated that the link "should be restored to the template." This, to me, suggested that you were proposing that the link be reinserted, and asking us what we thought. However, you went ahead and restored the link to the template a mere 29 minutes after proposing that it be re-added. I might very well ask for you to explain what the purpose of suggesting that something should be done was if you were just going to go ahead and do it anyway. I think Andrew c was right in that you need to stop operating under the assumption of "silent consensus." It often takes me longer than 30 minutes to write a post — longer if I have to do research. If you jump the gun during that period and assume that I'm not going to reply, basically, it just sends us right back to square one. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't "butt in" with off-topic posts in matters not directly related to you, as you did on User:80.4.39.7, because it is extremely difficult for me not to intepret this as confrontational button-pushing. The dispute with anon was completely unrelated to you, or any article we both frequent. -Severa (!!!) 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Severa, when I restored the longstanding status quo at the abortion template by reinserting the feticide link, I did so only after adding more material about abortion to the feticide article, only after explaining my reasons in an edit summary for reinserting the feticide link in an edit summary, and only after also explaining my reasons at the abortion template discussion page.

In stark contrast, when you subsequently changed the longstanding status quo at the abortion template by removing the feticide link that I had reinserted, you did so without any discussion whatsoever in response to any of my comments or edits. None. That is not consistent with Wikipedia policy about explaining reverts. Again and again over the past months, you have reverted my edits without any explanation, and also without responding to my discussion of why I made those edits in the first place.

You refer me to this comment that you made before I discussed the matter at the discussion page to point out why your comment was mistaken, and before I edited the feticide page to include further discussion about abortion, and also before I reinserted the feticide link in the abortion template. That comment of yours did not address any of my comments or edits whatsover.

You not only decline to acknowledge your failure to explain reverts, but you criticize me for contacting another editor who had the exact same concern about you reverting without explanation (he said, “if you undertake a destructive action, you need to consider explaining yourself as a matter of courtesy and priority”). Here is all I said to the other user: “I have posted a general comment about reverts, and the need to explain them, here.” That’s it. That’s all I said to the other user. And in response to my message to the other user, you now accuse me of "butting in", and of “confrontational button-pushing”. That is utter nonsense. If what you are saying is that I should keep my mouth shut, and never discuss with any other user our shared concerns about your authoritarian editing style, then I decline.Ferrylodge 05:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Following other editors around without a good cause is not acceptable, Ferrylodge — in fact, it's very clearly defined as disruptive behavior and disallowed by WP:HAR. I understand that we're going to run into each other in the articles we edit, which is fine, but the fact is that you went out of your way to insert yourself into a situation which had no relation to you here. My dispute with 80.4.39.7 wasn't related to you in any way, or to any article we edit together, so the fact that you contacted 80.4.39.7 is seen by me as an effort to stir something up. User:Jimmuldrow might be interested in learning about our shared concern over your "shadowing" of other users, but I've yet to leave a note on his Talk page, because I don't edit the articles about those court cases and that dispute does not pertain directly to me. -Severa (!!!) 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation of "following other editors around" is false. The previous section on this page includes comments by 80.4.39.7. That's how I found out about 80.4.39.7, not by monitoring your activities. The concerns expressed by 80.4.39.7 mirrored my own current difficulties with you, and so I mentioned it to him. Please try to relax, Severa.Ferrylodge 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By "following around" I was referring to your having posted on 80.4.39.7's talk page. Jimmuldrow and I are both sharing the same difficulties with you, regarding your persitent following-around, but I haven't contacted him, because I understand that your dispute with Jimmuldrow is completely isolated from your dispute with mine, and I have no wish to uspet the apple cart just for the sake of it. -Severa (!!!) 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)