Since a blastocyst can be taken from unused blastocysts leftover from couples' attempts at in vitro fertilization, proponents point out that it is a couple's choice on whether to allow medical research. In addition, advocates point to the potential therapies that are expected to derive from research in this area, which is not possible using adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood. -- K. Sargent

Thanks. I found your explanation. I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia. Your explanation helped me learn more about how Wiki works. -- K. Sargent

I wish we had more people involved in esc research working on this page. --K. Sargent 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about.--Getaway 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the edits to Dr. Condi Rice's article and I saw that you commented on the edits that followed my last edits. The edits that I assume you are referring to were placed there by an anon user whose IP address is 67.170.224.120. That is not me. When those edits took place I was staning in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles down here in South Texas. Also, that IP address belongs to someone in Santa Clara, California. So there is no need for your second level warning. It wasn't me. I don't agree with the personal comments of 67.170.224.120. Please don't jump to conclusions that those anon edits are mine. You will not need to make those assumptions because I always sign my edits. Please review my edit record. I sign all of my edits and it is clear that I follow all of the Wikipedian rules. So your warning should be applied to 67.170.224.120. I will go to that anon user's talk page and place a warning there where it is appropriate since it is not appropriate on my talk page. Thanks, --Getaway 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I reverted back one of your reverts of my work. I fixed the spelling of comparatively, which was misspelled in the Criticism section of Dr. Rice's article. I have fixed it before. The word should be spelled as "comparatively", not "comparitively". --Getaway 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake about the mis-aimed NPOV warning; sorry about that and the reversion of your good edit to a previous version. Fighting vandalism and enforcing NPOV is tough business. Thank you for the response, and happy editing. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove cited material from articles. If you see a citation that appears to be incorrect, but a statement which is itself plausible, please do the right thing and search around a little bit to see if you can find the appropriate citation for an assertion. Additionally, having looked over the edit history, I found evidence that you did indeed make edits [1] [2] that could be construed as attempting to put inappropriate point-of-view material or analysis into an article. Please, while we value your contributions, the standards set out in WP:NPOV are not negotiable or flexible. Neutral point of view is one of the keystones of the project keeping encyclopedic. Thank you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, sorry if I seem to be confrontative, but I'm extra-careful when it comes to editing articles about politics, I watch a lot of them. The Steven Chabot/John Cranley was the last big fiasco I waded into, and it was a right mess. I don't really take issue with what you did to the criticism section of Dr. Rice's article, but one thing you must be careful of is preserving the intent of the quoted person. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the re-added paragraph in the Brownback article was his action described as a scandal. I reverted the original text that you deleted without taking the time to find a proper source, and did not add any commentary of my own. Additionally, your accusations of my violation of the NPOV standard are unfounded. Your lack of effort in finding properly cited sources, and insisting on pointing out the political allegiance of critics of the politicians' articles you have edited so far are the reason I have been wary of the edits you have made. And to be perfectly honest, after the deletion of that paragraph, my wariness is not assuaged. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By any means, I have put up a new version of that section on Dr. Rice that incorporates both comments, specifically characterizing them as comments and not assertions by the encyclopedia's narrative voice. Take a look and let me know if you're okay with the wording as is. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion about Brownback's work on the stem cell bill to the section on his views--where it should have been all along. I was right. It was not controversial, just some Wikipedians attempting to force their opinion upon it, which of course is not NPOV. --Getaway 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Getaway. Allow me to start off by apologizing if I came off as overbearing last night. The reason for my (possibly undue) concern over some of the edits you made were as follows: In my experience working on the encyclopedia, I have recognized more and more the importance that image plays in how a person is viewed in the political universe. As such, any public forum about a figure of public standing is sure to attract people with vested interests in the image of the subject. As such, my expression of concern for the article was not about you specifically, certainly, but rather for the integrity of the article's balanced POV that editors spent some time working on bringing to neutrality a couple months ago. Most specifically, when I said I was wary of your edits, I definitely did not intend it as a personal statement toward you- it is my standard practice to watch out for potentially controversial edits being made and to make sure that the editors making them (even if they are perfectly legitimate editors, such as you yourself appear to be) do not exhibit a pattern of making edits that try to add analysis, opinion, or undue comments by the encyclopedia's narrative voice. It may at a glance seem to be interfering behavior, but I think that for the purposes of the integrity of articles dealing with important people, it is a necessary step.

So, again, I apologize if I came off as rude. Just understand that my interest is not in politics of any sort (check my contributions, even :) ), but making sure that the Wikipedia project stays as encyclopedic and reliable as it is, framing disputes and conflicts as they are in reality, and giving due focus to the arguments of any notable side of a conflict. I look forward to cooperating with you and other editors in the future. Thank you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not encourage editors to ignore policy and NPOV rules. In reminding users on their talk pages of the cornerstones of Wikipedia's policies, I am encouraging them to help make the project more encyclopedic. By encouraging them to ignore what I say, you imply that NPOV does not matter. This is not true; NPOV is not negotiable and is mandatory, particularly for articles about controversial subjects. If this was not your intention, please keep in mind that new editors commonly do not have a complete understanding of all of the cornerstone rules for editing at Wikipedia, and that while they should be encouraged to contribute, it is vitally important to maintain neutral point of view in the narrative voice of articles. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You specifically told a new editor to reframe from editing. I told that new editor to continue to edit. Your opinion on whether someone should edit or not DOES NOT MATTER. I will continue to encourage new editors to ignore your non-NPOV attempts to stop editors that have a different point of view than yours. Every time. I have seen your work and you do this every single new editor that does not agree with your POV. It is my right to point out to these editors that they can continue to edit with or without your personal blessings. Also, I believe strongly that when someone calls you on a point of of the rules, any point, you attempt to cloud and distort the issue, just like you have attempted to do here. I did NOT encourage the new editor not to follow the NPOV rules, I just pointed out, quite correctly I might add, that your, Kuzaar, personal opinion on whether they should participate in politically charged editing debates does not stop them from editing and I encourage the new editor to continue to edit with or without your blessings. I will do this again, eveny single time that I notice that you are encouraging new editors to stop editing, just because you do not agree with there POV. ----Getaway 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That is patently false. All I did was say that, for NPOV reasons, users should generally tend to stay away from articles in which they have a strong personal interest. For an example of the same logic, take a look at the guideline list of examples of bad article ideas, from which it takes only a step to understand the underlying reason that many of these are bad ideas for articles. Please note that I do not encourage new users not to edit; I ask that they follow the mandatory NPOV guidelines at Wikipedia and, in this case, inform them that they might consider (to avoid the temptation of making POV edits) editing away from articles that they might be tempted to insert commentary into. Similarly, note that if you go around after me, telling users that they can pretty much disregard everything I say, you are not only encouraging them to put themselves in an environment where they may be more tempted to make these edits, but you similarly imply that the rest of what I said (such as NPOV policy being important) does not matter. You're correct in that any one user's personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Where this logic fails, though, is where the user in question happens to be advocating to a user community-defined policy and suggestions, as I was.

I have never attempted to cloud the rules in my personal interest- indeed, I am not interested in politics. I do, however, have an interest in keeping the project encyclopedic and making sure that no POV material is put into articles. For this reason, I get a lot of flak for reminding users about NPOV policy. Please remember to assume good faith of other users (as I do), and try your best to achieve the ultimate goal of the Wikipedia project. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, please refrain from personal attacks on other users as you did in sarcastically referring to me as "Self-appointed Wikipedia Czar Kuzaar", on Ruthfulbarbarity's talk page. Community policies such as WP:NPA are important to a civil editing environment at Wikipedia. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are NOT going to get away with it. You are not going to cloud the issues again with long-winded tirades off the topic to get people to forget what it is that we are talking about. No. No. No. I will remind you once again. You stated that: "Please do not encourage editors to ignore policy and NPOV rules." That is falsehood. You are not going to intimidate me. You have been following me around Wikipedia for at least two weeks, but I will not be intimidated. I did NOT encourage the new editor to ignore the Wikipedia rules. If I did then you show me, in the edit record, where this happened!!!! Seriously, do not start one of your long-winded lectures on how you are neutral, etc. and how you are just reminding people of the rules. Focus. Show me exactly where I encouraged that new editor to break the rules. You are not going to get away with a hit and run.--Getaway 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to get away with anything. In telling the user to disregard what I had to say about his editing, you were telling him that what I had to say on the subject didn't matter. This is not true when I am reminding him of community policy. I am not clouding the water here, I am laying the issue out in the simplest terms. If I say to a user "Keep NPOV in mind, and it may also be a good idea to edit away from what you have strong personal feelings about", and you say "Disregard everything that Kuzaar said and keep doing what you're doing", you have indirectly told him to ignore NPOV policy. That is what my issue is. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No. We will go over this one more time. You stated, it is right here on this page and in the edit log: "Please do not encourage editors to ignore policy and NPOV rules." You have NOT shown me where I encouraged the new editor to ignore Wikipedia rules. Where is this written down??? Please, do not jump around the subject. I just want to see in writing where I specifically stated to the new editor to violated Wikipedia rules. Please show me. I'm not going to be intimidated with a bunch of talk off the topic. I just want to see the specific wording where I encouraged the new editor to violate Wikipedia policy as you claim. Where is it??? --Getaway 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You did not explicitly say "ignore NPOV". However, you encouraged the editor to disregard my comments on the subject when I was attempting to represent policy and community consensus, which is my problem. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I, in turn, should have more specific in my comments. If I had to do it over again, I would have told her to generally follow your comments, but completely ignore your suggestion that she refrain from editing controversial subjects. See? Wasn't that easy? --Getaway 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Even so, it is vitally important to NPOV that the editing user understands the policies outlined at the respective pages. The critical divide between characterizing a debate and re-enacting the same debate is an intellectually advanced one, and as I said before, it is oftentimes better that users unfamiliar with many of the ideas at WP:NPOV to not run the risk of adding commentary to an article which may go entirely unnoticed by editors than to go editing and create (whether intentionally or not) a fault in the neutral tone of the article which may go uncorrected. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There. You have the last word. --Getaway 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you mean. I believe in doing the courtesy to all editors of responding to comments left on my userpage; it's out of politeness, not a need to have the last word. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we have to go there. I believe that this whole long discussion could have been shorter and much more to the point if you have given ME the benefit of "good faith" from the beginning. Instead of jumping to a conclusion that I was encouraging the new editor to violate the NPOV rules (and other rules) you could have had a discussion with me where we talked about what I meant with last night's comment that I left on the new editor's talk page. I never encouraged her to violated any rules and you should have not jumped to that conclusion and that conclusion jumping should not have happened if you had offered me the courtesy of "good faith." Also, I'm not the one who is following you around. You are following me around. I don't see that as courtesy. --Getaway 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, and I apologize if my actions have seemed like I am following you around, and I similarly apologize if I did not assume good faith as much as I should have. Like I said, I spend a lot of time patrolling controversial articles because of their tendency to be the target of POV edits. Incidentally, users that edit a lot there (such as yourself) can sometimes misconstrue my efforts to keep the articles up to standard as me following them around. Nevertheless, this is something that is nearly always bound to happen when editing controversial subject's articles, so I end up playing the role of the editor that disagrees with everyone. Naturally, as you might imagine, this makes for a pretty stressful experience at Wikipedia and I am often inclined to read more into users that disagree with my interpretation of policy than is sometimes there. No hard feelings, though, it's something that happens a lot in the world of political (and religious, too, and ethnic and nationalistic) subjects in Wikipedia. Cheers, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

One of wikipedia's tenants is to assume good faith. In your last edit summary at Georgia 4th congressional district election, 2006, you said "removed commentary of a Wikipedian". In fact, the text you removed - text that I put in - was taken directly from a politics1.com page. I don't feel strongly about the text, one way or another, but I do mind being accused of adding "commentary". I don't. (And yes, the text was not sourced - but "Removed commentary" would have sufficed as an edit summary.) John Broughton 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

5th amendment...Damn lawyers... youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

for that critical hint of yours acc. to me very short posting GÜNTER GRASS - afaIk I didn´t act as a vandal -he or she;-)- but just placed another additional hard-core information, naming the open source, on the Grass-years 1944/45. Nevetheless I´ll do me best;-) and will the next time at first post any message to the "talk" page, starting actually telling you this link - a smart commentary on the GraSS-affair in Germany as given by Richard Albrecht, editor of the independent online-magazine for civil rights in Germany, "rechtskultur" [[3]], which might be of interest for you [[4]], yours sincerely, MvS Aug. 17, 2006

The news states the whole party, also it includes Lech Welsea, and others. Please discuss on talk page and provide citation to claim "only" MP - it's not true. I'm from Poland and you can believe me:>.

• This is not official statement of Law and Justice. There are no official statements or hand-outs. Only Jacek Kurski stated - see Gazeta Wyborcza or PAP communicates
• Wałęsa is opponent of the ruling party.

Szwedzki 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In your summary upon deletion of this section, you confuse the issues of “original research” with POV. A piece can have POV but be heavily cited, and it can be original research without POV.

And lack of citation is not sufficient to show that something is “original research” as defined for purposes of Wikipedia policy. The essence of “original research” is that it is novel to the editor.

On the other hand, if something is perfectly obvious, then the only thing that it contributes to an article would be flow, helping the reader to move from one point to later points. In the case of the section that you deleted, there are no further points. Hence, I see little reason to restore the section; I object here to your argument for deletion as its application elsewhere might genuinely damage an article. —12.72.119.59 08:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)