User talk:Ste11aeres

Welcome

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you decide to stick around. If you're interested in learning more about how things work here, the five pillars are a good place to start. The most important things to remember are always cite your sources, maintain a neutral point of view, assume good faith, be bold, and last but not least, ignore all rules!

By the by, I noticed an edit you made to Asperger syndrome was reverted. I wouldn't take it personally; Asperger syndrome is a featured article, and standards for featured articles are very very high. It's usually best to discuss any changes you want to make on the talk page beforehand, no matter how inconsequential they may seem (in other words, featured articles are one area where being bold isn't the best course of action).

I know this all seems a bit intimidating at first, but you'll get the hang of it. If you have any questions, the folk at the Teahouse are always willing to help out new users. As, indeed, am I – you can talk to me at User talk:DoctorKubla.

Have fun!

DoctorKubla (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Hello, I'm KillerChihuahua. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edits to Abortion and mental health seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed them. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Killer Chihuahua 21:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My edits were made after reading the actual statements made by the Associations in question. I was not attempting to convey my own opinions,within the article, but merely repeated what the APA actually said. The statements of the APA, the same words I referred to when making my edits, were not according to my own beliefs on the matter, (which I do not care to discuss on Wilkipedia) and I made the edits with a view to increasing factual detail and accuracy. These are the actual words of the 2008 Executive Summary of the APA's findings "In considering the psychological implications of abortion, the TFMHA recognized that abortion encompasses a diversity of experiences. Women obtain abortions for different reasons; at different times of gestation; via differing medical procedures; and within different personal, social, economic, and cultural contexts. All of these may lead to variability in women’s psychological reactions following abortion. Consequently, global statements about the psychological impact of abortion on women can be misleading." retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/executive-summary.pdf

I do appreciate your message, and your request for discussion and know we have a shared goal of keeping Wilkepedia accurate. Ste11aeres (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Are you User:Rivka3 ? You're either Rivka3 or you're editing someone else's post. Tell me which.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Killer Chihuahua 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ste11aeres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Mistake from using same computer!! I'm Ste11aeres, and I made a comment/reply, without realising that the computer was logged in under a different registered name. Then, when I realised, I logged out from that user name, signed in as Ste11aeres, and re-signed the article. How embarressing. I will be really careful that it doesn't happen again. This is a mistake due to using a computer that was not logged out from another name. This is clear when you see that the above note which was originally signed (acccidently) as another user, was a response to a note to ME, Ste11aeres. There is no reason I would purposely give a response that only makes sense coming from Ste11aeres, that I would purposely give it as another user. Ste11aeres (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't believe you. At 21:56 on Feb. 12, this account edited Priests for Life. At 21:58 on the same IP, User:Rivka3 was created; at 22:00, Rivka3 edited Feminists for Life. I believe the two accounts are the same human. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to reviewing admin: He made edits, which I reverted, and left a note here. Then he left a note on my page under the other username, then edited it as Ste11aeres. There is a sockpuppet investigation underway; both editors seem to be SPAs regarding Abortion, which is under ArbCom sanctions. Killer Chihuahua 22:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ste11aeres. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 10:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]