Jump to content

User talk:Shaftesbury'sPipe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am part of a course taught by Wiki Education that trains scholars in how to edit Wikipedia. Learn more at wikiedu.org. All of my contributions are my own and I take responsibility for them.

Welcome...

Hello, Shaftesbury'sPipe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page.  Again, welcome! ProfGray (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels a little bit like 4th grade with a secret decoder ring! But I am really happy to be part of this project and looking forward to tomorrow! Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for your edits on Comstock Laws, the page really needed them. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I'm going to work on this in the next few days to get the rest looking better. There are a LOT of page views and it is something that should be clear! Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock and abortion

[edit]

In Talk:Comstock Act of 1873, you wrote: "I had trouble editing this page because Comstock WAS a law about X, Y, Z then it was amended to be about X,Y. Now it is being talked about as having power to regulate abortion."

Comstock has always been about restricting abortion (along with other things)... this was just a moot point while Roe v. Wade was in effect. Fabrickator (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree -- abortion has always been EXPLICITLY in the statute and one of its main purposes. I agree that this article has to demonstrate WHY Comstock was related to abortion -- and is now relevant because of Dobbs. If you can do any editing here, it would be very helpful! Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion problem

[edit]

You listed a discussion at WP:3O for a third opinion, but it seems that there are already more than two editors involved. As it says at the top of WP:3O, "For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment."

I suggest removing the 3O request and posting at DRN instead. If you leave it up, there's a small chance that someone provides a 3O anyways, but it might take a while. Toadspike [Talk] 10:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I am new to editing and am taking a class. The Wikipedia editor teaching the class said it had to be a 3O. But I see what you mean and I'll put in the DRN. Thanks again! Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, good luck with your class! Please be careful at DRN: Stay calm, be polite, and don't feel that you need to reply to every single comment that is made. Discussions on the big noticeboards can get intense. Toadspike [Talk] 11:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further legislative history?

[edit]

I've revised the Comstock Act of 1873 article to add information on its legislative history (which can be viewed here), and from what I've gleaned from the U.S. Senate journal, I find it's quite frankly shocking how there is hardly any discussion or even passing curiosity towards the Act during its legislative passage. Therefore, for a federal law with some of the broadest language I've read upheld as constitutional, I find it hard to believe not a single Senator or Congressmember ever raised any eyebrows. The only federal laws I can think of with a broader scope, and even more vague language, than Comstock Act are the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), the federal program bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 666), and the Federal Analogue Act (21 U.S.C. § 813). Yet, all three of these laws I just mentioned were subjected to at least one hearing with an available transcript. For the Comstock Act, I've struggled to find any analogous discussion. Although, considering the Comstock Act began with a 'stealth' rider being attached to a must-pass postal bill, this lack of discussion might've been likewise purposeful. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating legislative history. I think what you have there is very clear and helpful. But I am wondering how to convey to a reader that this is unusual. A sentence that says that legislation is often discussed and debated (maybe there is something about that on a Congress page that could be linked to)? I don't have time right now but I know some people who study this period and I can ask them for references -- but will take me some time. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked some since I last messaged you on your talk page and I did manage to read the House of Representatives Journal, getting some more info on the legislative history (albeit all of procedural nature). Still no recorded discussion over it. I have also begun working to expand the article's focus from that directly of the law itself (e.g., text, history, and tradition) to the impacts and implications of this law. For instance, I have added under the 'contemporary discourse' tab's 'implication' sub-header some information about how barriers to abortion access are not limited to solely those created by legal policy. Some of what I have written thus far can be viewed here (the third paragraph). If you have any suggestions, points for inquiry/expansions, or wish to put forth any questions, I am happy to respond. Furthermore, I hereby apologize for any earlier 'tit-for-tat'-esque arguments I had with you over this particular article. Pleasant editing and best wishes, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Shaftesbury'sPipe! Your additions to Ethel Tobach have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I have contacted the Animal Behavior Society and they have given me an email to determine whether the material is copyrighted and whether the author will give permission. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The email needs to be sent directly to the Volunteer Response Team by the copyright holder. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for detailed instructions. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Ethel Tobach is an important scientist (but her page is not capturing her contributions). I am confident that listing her awards and research will be possible without violating copyright. Shaftesbury'sPipe (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shaftesbury%27sPipe&oldid=1247782878"