Talk:Abortion in Vermont: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎No link to topic: notification notification
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 47: Line 47:


:There is no requirement to establish consensus before editing. "blanked by you with no cause or reason" - I have provided reasons for the removals. There is also no requirement to seek consensus before editing, see [[WP:BOLD]]. [[Special:Contributions/129.67.118.6|129.67.118.6]] ([[User talk:129.67.118.6|talk]]) 12:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
:There is no requirement to establish consensus before editing. "blanked by you with no cause or reason" - I have provided reasons for the removals. There is also no requirement to seek consensus before editing, see [[WP:BOLD]]. [[Special:Contributions/129.67.118.6|129.67.118.6]] ([[User talk:129.67.118.6|talk]]) 12:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You have provided no reasons for the majority of the deletions you did, and what you said you would do ran contrary to what you actually did do. You’re throwing around Wikipedia policies while making extreme edits removing whole and cited and relevant and important sections of the article as an IP. Your behavior is destructive and entirely unjustified. [[User:VictimOfEntropy|VictimOfEntropy]] ([[User talk:VictimOfEntropy|talk]]) 12:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:54, 26 July 2022

WikiProject iconWomen in Red: 2019
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project in 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.

Poor quality

I'm not getting into the politics of the issue here, but I feel this article is very poor quality. It doesn't tell us much about the subject as very little is specific to Vermont. What is the current status of abortion in Vermont? Who can access it and why? Are there still barriers, issues, problems? I really can't tell from this article. And it certainly is not from a neutral point of view. I'd fix the intro if there was something in the body of the article to put in there, but there isn't.--Murky Falls (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have removed loads of extraneous content. I believe the Abortion_in_Vermont#Context and Abortion_in_Vermont#Terminology sections should also be removed as they include no information specific to Vermont. 129.67.117.45 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There is nothing “poor quality” about this article and it’s very unfortunate that some people have targeted it when it’s of better quality than most state-specific articles on abortion and certainly now provides everything that was mentioned. There are no issues with this article and it’s very suspect how a few people seem bent on inventing them. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No link to topic

Half of the "chapters" don't have any ties to Vermont and about half of the content on this page has zero relevance to the article. My edit was not approved. 213.225.14.108 (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are incorrect. Everything in this article that you deleted in your edits is specific to Vermont, and entirely relevant to the topic of abortion in Vermont. The only parts of the article that aren’t specifically about abortion in Vermont in particular—the Context and Terminology sections—are the parts of the article that you did not delete, in fact. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agree that the context and terminology sections are not specifically about abortion in Vermont and have deleted them accordingly. 129.67.117.45 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hey man im josh, why do we need to set out the contested terminology of abortion and provide a (poor) review of reproductive rights/health when both things are better done at Abortion? 129.67.117.45 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You committed vandalism by blanking the page and removing all of the important and relevant information. Stop. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VictimOfEntropy, vandalism on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism). Please strike your accusation. You are obviously welcome to test it at the appropriate noticeboard. You are also incorrect in accusing me of "page blanking", which also has a specific meaning (WP:BLANK). I notice that you did not respond to my explanations for removal above. Please do so we can work towards achieving consensus. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello VictimOfEntropy, Vermont is not mentioned in the citation provided ([1]). Please do not edit war unsourced and challenged content in [2]. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did respond to what you said, which was contrary to your actions. Stop behaving disingenuously and clearly out of spite and denial of the obvious facts. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VictimOfEntropy, please do not make assumptions as towards my motives without reasonable cause (WP:ASPERSIONS). Where have you responded to what I said beyond "Restoring previous version of page after destructive and false edits from an IP page-blanking"? 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On this very page. I said that you removed all of the relevant and important information on this page relating to the topic of the article. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits—or, I should say, deletions done without any discussion whatsoever—are the only disputed ones. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I and the other user are doing is acting to protect this page from being blanked by you with no cause or reason. You could have easily looked up those citations yourself, but instead chose to delete even the well-cited sections of the article without anyone agreeing with you. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to establish consensus before editing. "blanked by you with no cause or reason" - I have provided reasons for the removals. There is also no requirement to seek consensus before editing, see WP:BOLD. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no reasons for the majority of the deletions you did, and what you said you would do ran contrary to what you actually did do. You’re throwing around Wikipedia policies while making extreme edits removing whole and cited and relevant and important sections of the article as an IP. Your behavior is destructive and entirely unjustified. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]