Hello, I notice you’ve recently edited the Becky Bell page and I thought you may be interested in the justfacts.com website which provides some additional information on the case (starting about 1/4 of the way down) [1]
Of specific interest are statements made to a newspaper reporter by Becky Bell’s best friend, Heather Clark. According to justfacts.com, “Ms. Clark, who accompanied Becky to Planned Parenthood, told the reporter that Becky did not have an induced abortion. She also said that when she visited Becky (four days after she had gotten sick and the night before she passed on), Becky asked her to schedule an abortion in Louisville, Kentucky for two days later”
The above information is from the following article: "Abortion debate shifting; Individuals become symbols in dispute." By Joe Frolik. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 9, 1990.
However, to include this relevant information in the Wikipedia article, someone would have to locate the old Cleveland Plain Dealer article, which I think is only now available on microfilm. I’ve being meaning to do so, but have not gotten around to it, and thought if you had interest you may be able to get your hands on this old article. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 02:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You should be commended for not backing down in your efforts to improve the Becky Bell article in the face of opposition from experienced editors. The article as it presently stands is much better than earlier versions in no small part to your efforts. 131.109.225.24 ( talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Bishonen | talk 19:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC).
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maxim Makukov 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/Maxim Makukov 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. jps ( talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, GodBlessYou2. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The relevant section is WP:FTN#GodBlessYou2.
jps ( talk) 18:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Fine-tuned Universe. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Here is a quote of the third sentence in the vandalism guidelines.
"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
Please do not refer to good faith edits as vandalism. Adam in MO Talk 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to head you down a road which won't get you blocked because, fairly, that's where you're headed. You're making a mistake I've seen many make before when it comes to scientific subjects. You're not realizing that a scientist that abandons the scientific method at some point in their career, abandons journals, but continues to publish blogs, fringe books from fringe publishers or pseudoscientific claptrap can't be cited as an expert, or having any due weight, just based on their prior credentials. Nor are they notable unless their fringe ideas at least gets huge coverage in media. That's the main issue you seem to keep running into. As an anecdote this summer I was arguing, amongst many others, with a Nobel Prize winner on this site about his own article and a friend of his article. An NB winner who had long ago left anything you'd call science behind. Eventually he had to concede that there was no scientifically evidential data to support his claims through any RS and that's how the article had to be crafted to meet WP standards. Capeo ( talk) 05:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems the game being played out here is one that is sadly standard on WP. Basically, a group of editors will bully to you until you snap (even ever so slightly) and then they will chime in that you are UNCIVIL. This typically seems to occur in order to censor a POV that the others do not personally agree with. FWIW, I’d be cautious about sourcing (please be careful to avoid self-published sources etc) With RS on controversial topics, it's best to attribute the content to the writer, instead of presenting it as information stated as factual in Wikipedia’s voice etc) and please be aware that any reasonable frustration with this treatment will be deemed UNCIVIL and used against you. Good luck. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
you have been here all of three months. Please read
WP:TPG and if you have questions about what people can and cannot do on their own Talk page, please let me know. And if you want to have conversations about article editing, please open discussion on the relevant article Talk page. Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk) 22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (corrected
Jytdog (
talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
Next time you restore a comment to another editors talk page such as you did here [4] for the third time you will find yourself blocked. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
A request to enforce discretionary sanctions against you has been made:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GodBlessYou2.
You are strongly encouraged to comment.
jps ( talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw the AE notice against you. I work with a lot of the religion related content around here, and I think that we probably could use more content relating to a lot of the content related to the intersection of religion and science, including creationism. Unfortunately, at this point, there are serious issues regarding the amount of space and material as per WP:WEIGHT to give to various aspects of the debate in various articles.
You are apparently a newer editor, and on that basis there is a chance that you might receive more leniency than others. If I might be so bold, I think it would be very much in your own interests if you were to respond at the AE thread linked to in the section above. Thereafter, it might not be a bad idea to review a lot of the content related to this topic, and maybe contact me or other editors involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism and its articles for some help in either adding additional content to some of the related articles if that is the best option or perhaps creating additional articles relating to the topic. But the main articles on the topic are, at this point, fairly well developed, and the fact that they fall under discretionary sanctions, meaning editors can have their abilities to edit restricted by uninvolved admins at the AE board I linked to above, means that it is generally a good idea to tread lightly regarding this topic. Proposing changes on an article talk page, or maybe on the Creationism project talk page, is probably the safest way for anyone, newer or older editor, to proceed regarding this topic. John Carter ( talk) 20:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Despite the difficulties and sanctions, I want to thank you for your patient and sagacious contributions to debate and discussions at the Creation-Evolution debate. Unlike some other editors, who have not hesitated to use ad hominems, and express considerable irritability, even in difficult times and under pressure you have shown civility and courtesy and it seems to me a proper and judicious concern for wiki's policies and for impartial encyclopaedic editing. Cpsoper ( talk) 12:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe I had posted in the article TALK earlier asking for you to come back to the scene after a cooling period for all, so think I in particular should thank you for returning. Still seems like instead of responding to the questions asked it runs off into responses on wording, WEIGHT, too terse or just bickering, so perhaps you may feel it was a wasted effort. But regardless of the choices other made in what comes back or how it works out I thank you for choosing to try again, and think an RFC was a good way to try. Markbassett ( talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I notice you’ve recently edited the Becky Bell page and I thought you may be interested in the justfacts.com website which provides some additional information on the case (starting about 1/4 of the way down) [1]
Of specific interest are statements made to a newspaper reporter by Becky Bell’s best friend, Heather Clark. According to justfacts.com, “Ms. Clark, who accompanied Becky to Planned Parenthood, told the reporter that Becky did not have an induced abortion. She also said that when she visited Becky (four days after she had gotten sick and the night before she passed on), Becky asked her to schedule an abortion in Louisville, Kentucky for two days later”
The above information is from the following article: "Abortion debate shifting; Individuals become symbols in dispute." By Joe Frolik. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 9, 1990.
However, to include this relevant information in the Wikipedia article, someone would have to locate the old Cleveland Plain Dealer article, which I think is only now available on microfilm. I’ve being meaning to do so, but have not gotten around to it, and thought if you had interest you may be able to get your hands on this old article. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 02:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You should be commended for not backing down in your efforts to improve the Becky Bell article in the face of opposition from experienced editors. The article as it presently stands is much better than earlier versions in no small part to your efforts. 131.109.225.24 ( talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Bishonen | talk 19:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC).
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maxim Makukov 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/Maxim Makukov 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. jps ( talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, GodBlessYou2. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The relevant section is WP:FTN#GodBlessYou2.
jps ( talk) 18:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Fine-tuned Universe. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Here is a quote of the third sentence in the vandalism guidelines.
"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
Please do not refer to good faith edits as vandalism. Adam in MO Talk 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to head you down a road which won't get you blocked because, fairly, that's where you're headed. You're making a mistake I've seen many make before when it comes to scientific subjects. You're not realizing that a scientist that abandons the scientific method at some point in their career, abandons journals, but continues to publish blogs, fringe books from fringe publishers or pseudoscientific claptrap can't be cited as an expert, or having any due weight, just based on their prior credentials. Nor are they notable unless their fringe ideas at least gets huge coverage in media. That's the main issue you seem to keep running into. As an anecdote this summer I was arguing, amongst many others, with a Nobel Prize winner on this site about his own article and a friend of his article. An NB winner who had long ago left anything you'd call science behind. Eventually he had to concede that there was no scientifically evidential data to support his claims through any RS and that's how the article had to be crafted to meet WP standards. Capeo ( talk) 05:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems the game being played out here is one that is sadly standard on WP. Basically, a group of editors will bully to you until you snap (even ever so slightly) and then they will chime in that you are UNCIVIL. This typically seems to occur in order to censor a POV that the others do not personally agree with. FWIW, I’d be cautious about sourcing (please be careful to avoid self-published sources etc) With RS on controversial topics, it's best to attribute the content to the writer, instead of presenting it as information stated as factual in Wikipedia’s voice etc) and please be aware that any reasonable frustration with this treatment will be deemed UNCIVIL and used against you. Good luck. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
you have been here all of three months. Please read
WP:TPG and if you have questions about what people can and cannot do on their own Talk page, please let me know. And if you want to have conversations about article editing, please open discussion on the relevant article Talk page. Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk) 22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (corrected
Jytdog (
talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
Next time you restore a comment to another editors talk page such as you did here [4] for the third time you will find yourself blocked. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
A request to enforce discretionary sanctions against you has been made:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GodBlessYou2.
You are strongly encouraged to comment.
jps ( talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw the AE notice against you. I work with a lot of the religion related content around here, and I think that we probably could use more content relating to a lot of the content related to the intersection of religion and science, including creationism. Unfortunately, at this point, there are serious issues regarding the amount of space and material as per WP:WEIGHT to give to various aspects of the debate in various articles.
You are apparently a newer editor, and on that basis there is a chance that you might receive more leniency than others. If I might be so bold, I think it would be very much in your own interests if you were to respond at the AE thread linked to in the section above. Thereafter, it might not be a bad idea to review a lot of the content related to this topic, and maybe contact me or other editors involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism and its articles for some help in either adding additional content to some of the related articles if that is the best option or perhaps creating additional articles relating to the topic. But the main articles on the topic are, at this point, fairly well developed, and the fact that they fall under discretionary sanctions, meaning editors can have their abilities to edit restricted by uninvolved admins at the AE board I linked to above, means that it is generally a good idea to tread lightly regarding this topic. Proposing changes on an article talk page, or maybe on the Creationism project talk page, is probably the safest way for anyone, newer or older editor, to proceed regarding this topic. John Carter ( talk) 20:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Despite the difficulties and sanctions, I want to thank you for your patient and sagacious contributions to debate and discussions at the Creation-Evolution debate. Unlike some other editors, who have not hesitated to use ad hominems, and express considerable irritability, even in difficult times and under pressure you have shown civility and courtesy and it seems to me a proper and judicious concern for wiki's policies and for impartial encyclopaedic editing. Cpsoper ( talk) 12:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe I had posted in the article TALK earlier asking for you to come back to the scene after a cooling period for all, so think I in particular should thank you for returning. Still seems like instead of responding to the questions asked it runs off into responses on wording, WEIGHT, too terse or just bickering, so perhaps you may feel it was a wasted effort. But regardless of the choices other made in what comes back or how it works out I thank you for choosing to try again, and think an RFC was a good way to try. Markbassett ( talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)