Welcome...
Hello, Born Gay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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 place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
七星 (
talk) 00:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there!
You may have noticed that I reverted one of your edits on said article--the one where you changed "above referenced therapy" to "pathologizing therapy". As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we try to maintain a neutral viewpoint in articles. I felt that the word "pathologizing" was too opinionated. "Above referenced" shows no bias or opinion on the matter.
I noticed your other two edits were very good, though, expanding the information on legal incidents.
Good luck!
WordyGirl90 ( talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If someone says that homosexuality is a disorder, that is pathologizing. There's no question of that; the wording you reverted was neutral. Born Gay ( talk) 00:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Why did you archive talk page discussions from today on the article? Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Born Gay, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender ( LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
-- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Seeing your comments on Talk:Ex-gay, I'm wondering if you'd be interestied in a project I've been trying to drum up interest in for a while: Getting the BLP of James Dobson up to GA/FA status. Right now, it really lacks a good coherence in criticisms of Dobson. I've approached a number of other Wikipedians interested in such topics to edit a good series of criticisms, but all have consistently declined as uninterested or finding the topic too emotionally difficult for them. Would you be interested? Jclemens ( talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I responded on the talk page to you here. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Born Gay! There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest ( talk) 05:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The
Miss Julie Memorial LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter: Special Pride 2009 Booty call edition | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi - I noticed you edited the Nuclear Terrorism article; would you be willing to weigh in on this discussion? This is the second attempt at an RfC on these issues (the first was here). Thanks, csloat ( talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a direct quote from you:
“ | note that WP:WAR states, "Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking." I had objected strongly when you made that change to the lead, and reverted you, so what you did was edit warring, not being bold. | ” |
Hyper3 ( talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Get the whiff of meatpuppetry in the air? Mish ( talk) 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The Ex-gay ministry section is misleading. I'm not saying that it is wrong, but the facts you chose to focus on is misleading. The APA says that it is helpful to mitigate minority stress, and that support groups have helped clients change sexual orientation identity. I really don't understand how you can claim that counselors having sex with their clients is on-topic, but the APA report is off-topic. You also misrepresent Haldeman's views. He wrote "For some, religious identity is so important that it is more realistic to consider changing sexual orientation than abandoning one's religion of origin...if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged." Joshuajohanson ( talk) 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In case you miss my reversion, WP:MOSCAPS is explicit on this: "The adjective biblical should not be capitalized. ". Dougweller ( talk) 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, my name is the Wordsmith, and I've volunteered to mediate your dispute. If you consent to mediation, please sign with ~~~~ in the "Mediator Notes" section. Thanks, The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm) Communicate 13:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am probably closer to your thoughts in any case. I just think that the minority position should be there *somewhere*, but I have grave doubts about including anything positive about conversion therapy because of my serious POV issues with it.
I don't intend to do anything other than speak up due to my past experiences in this area. I'd rather let others work on the article itself since it is so contentious and upsetting for me.-- Boweneer ( talk) 06:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Sexual orientation change efforts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
tommy
talk 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Conversion therapy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Hyper3 ( talk) 00:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hyper3 ( talk) 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Administrator Will Beback on 19 October, 2009 blocked IP address 208.105.149.80 for six months. While I am not entirely sure, it appears that he did this on the understanding that that IP address was being used by me to evade my block; the fact that he blocked it within moments of blocking Celest7 (which was indeed one of my sockpuppets) and deleting "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sloojal" (which I created with the aforementioned sockpuppet, as a joke), suggests as much. I wish to publically record that I have never used the IP address 208.105.149.80, either to evade my block or for any other purpose. While I understand that such a statement may appear to have little credibility, coming as it does from me, there are several facts that should convince an impartial observer that Will Beback's block of 208.105.149.80 was likely a mistake.
First, there is the geographic location of the IP address. 208.105.149.80 is based in New York State, in the United States of America. I am not an American, and do not live in the United States. While I see no need to state precisely where I live, I can confirm that I am in the Asia-Pacific region, a very, very long way away from the USA, which, I submit, makes it unlikely that 208.105.149.80 would be an IP address that I would use. The checkuser J.delanoy is well aware of my geographic location (as one can see here, where he refers to APNIC data; APINC is the Regional Internet Registry for the Asia Pacific region, and J.delanoy would have had no reason to mention it had I been located anywhere else but the Asia-Pacific region).
I suggest that anyone interested in this matter ask J.delanoy about it. Other checkusers can confirm that I am telling the truth about this, if they wish.
Second, 208.105.149.80, despite its recent block, is still marked as a "suspected sockpuppet" of Skoojal. How, I ask, can it be appropriate to block the IP if it is only a suspected sockpuppet, not a confirmed sockpuppet?
Third, the IP address 74.70.44.210, which was also tagged as a possible sock of Skoojal (back on January 3, 2009), has not been blocked, even though 74.70.44.210 and 208.105.149.80 have been confirmed as being operated by the same person (see here). Both IP addresses have been confirmed as being used by the same person who operates the account BoulderCreek12; however, that editor has also not been blocked. This obviously does not make sense; since they are all used by the same person, either both IP adddresses and the BoulderCreek12 account should have been blocked, or none of them should have been. Please see the relevant discussion in this archive of Cailil's talk page [1].
I am not making this statement in order to attack Will Beback, J.delanoy, or anyone else. I am sure that Will thought he was doing the right thing in making that block, but it appears to have been a mistake. For my part, I know that I am doing the right thing by clarifying matters. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 08:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully submit that Will Beback should not have been the administrator to remove my ability to send emails, even if such a move was considered necessary for whatever reason. The fact is that I have been using them to criticise his block of 208.105.149.80, which, for the reasons indicated, is clearly inappropriate and unjustified. I note Will Beback's failure to say anything in defense of that block. Why not simply admit to making a mistake, Will? A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The three reasons I have given why the block of 208.105.149.80 was wrong are sufficient in themselves, in my view, but there is an additional reason, which shows that I am most unlikely to have been using that IP:
Back in January 2009, I repeatedly came into conflict with 208.105.149.80 and 74.70.44.210 (which as explained above, were being used by the same editor, who is also BoulderCreek12) on the conversion therapy article. I found the edits made by that editor (including his insistence that an approach to homosexuality that defined it as a mental disorder not be described as "pathologizing") to be unhelpful, and repeatedly reverted them.
Compare this edit by 208.105.149.80 [2] to this one by me [3]. See also conversion therapy talk page archive 8 [4].
Many of the edits I made to conversion therapy in February 2009 consisted of undoing things done by 208.105.149.80, removing tags he added, and so on. I could provide more diffs in support of this, but I don't see a need to, since the evidence of my conflicts with this IP is there in my edit history and the revision history of conversion therapy. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 21:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer ( talk) 04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Transformational ministry. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27#Transformational ministry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome...
Hello, Born Gay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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 place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
七星 (
talk) 00:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there!
You may have noticed that I reverted one of your edits on said article--the one where you changed "above referenced therapy" to "pathologizing therapy". As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we try to maintain a neutral viewpoint in articles. I felt that the word "pathologizing" was too opinionated. "Above referenced" shows no bias or opinion on the matter.
I noticed your other two edits were very good, though, expanding the information on legal incidents.
Good luck!
WordyGirl90 ( talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If someone says that homosexuality is a disorder, that is pathologizing. There's no question of that; the wording you reverted was neutral. Born Gay ( talk) 00:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Why did you archive talk page discussions from today on the article? Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Born Gay, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender ( LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
-- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Seeing your comments on Talk:Ex-gay, I'm wondering if you'd be interestied in a project I've been trying to drum up interest in for a while: Getting the BLP of James Dobson up to GA/FA status. Right now, it really lacks a good coherence in criticisms of Dobson. I've approached a number of other Wikipedians interested in such topics to edit a good series of criticisms, but all have consistently declined as uninterested or finding the topic too emotionally difficult for them. Would you be interested? Jclemens ( talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I responded on the talk page to you here. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Born Gay! There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest ( talk) 05:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The
Miss Julie Memorial LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter: Special Pride 2009 Booty call edition | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi - I noticed you edited the Nuclear Terrorism article; would you be willing to weigh in on this discussion? This is the second attempt at an RfC on these issues (the first was here). Thanks, csloat ( talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a direct quote from you:
“ | note that WP:WAR states, "Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking." I had objected strongly when you made that change to the lead, and reverted you, so what you did was edit warring, not being bold. | ” |
Hyper3 ( talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Get the whiff of meatpuppetry in the air? Mish ( talk) 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The Ex-gay ministry section is misleading. I'm not saying that it is wrong, but the facts you chose to focus on is misleading. The APA says that it is helpful to mitigate minority stress, and that support groups have helped clients change sexual orientation identity. I really don't understand how you can claim that counselors having sex with their clients is on-topic, but the APA report is off-topic. You also misrepresent Haldeman's views. He wrote "For some, religious identity is so important that it is more realistic to consider changing sexual orientation than abandoning one's religion of origin...if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged." Joshuajohanson ( talk) 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In case you miss my reversion, WP:MOSCAPS is explicit on this: "The adjective biblical should not be capitalized. ". Dougweller ( talk) 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, my name is the Wordsmith, and I've volunteered to mediate your dispute. If you consent to mediation, please sign with ~~~~ in the "Mediator Notes" section. Thanks, The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm) Communicate 13:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am probably closer to your thoughts in any case. I just think that the minority position should be there *somewhere*, but I have grave doubts about including anything positive about conversion therapy because of my serious POV issues with it.
I don't intend to do anything other than speak up due to my past experiences in this area. I'd rather let others work on the article itself since it is so contentious and upsetting for me.-- Boweneer ( talk) 06:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Sexual orientation change efforts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
tommy
talk 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Conversion therapy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Hyper3 ( talk) 00:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hyper3 ( talk) 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Administrator Will Beback on 19 October, 2009 blocked IP address 208.105.149.80 for six months. While I am not entirely sure, it appears that he did this on the understanding that that IP address was being used by me to evade my block; the fact that he blocked it within moments of blocking Celest7 (which was indeed one of my sockpuppets) and deleting "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sloojal" (which I created with the aforementioned sockpuppet, as a joke), suggests as much. I wish to publically record that I have never used the IP address 208.105.149.80, either to evade my block or for any other purpose. While I understand that such a statement may appear to have little credibility, coming as it does from me, there are several facts that should convince an impartial observer that Will Beback's block of 208.105.149.80 was likely a mistake.
First, there is the geographic location of the IP address. 208.105.149.80 is based in New York State, in the United States of America. I am not an American, and do not live in the United States. While I see no need to state precisely where I live, I can confirm that I am in the Asia-Pacific region, a very, very long way away from the USA, which, I submit, makes it unlikely that 208.105.149.80 would be an IP address that I would use. The checkuser J.delanoy is well aware of my geographic location (as one can see here, where he refers to APNIC data; APINC is the Regional Internet Registry for the Asia Pacific region, and J.delanoy would have had no reason to mention it had I been located anywhere else but the Asia-Pacific region).
I suggest that anyone interested in this matter ask J.delanoy about it. Other checkusers can confirm that I am telling the truth about this, if they wish.
Second, 208.105.149.80, despite its recent block, is still marked as a "suspected sockpuppet" of Skoojal. How, I ask, can it be appropriate to block the IP if it is only a suspected sockpuppet, not a confirmed sockpuppet?
Third, the IP address 74.70.44.210, which was also tagged as a possible sock of Skoojal (back on January 3, 2009), has not been blocked, even though 74.70.44.210 and 208.105.149.80 have been confirmed as being operated by the same person (see here). Both IP addresses have been confirmed as being used by the same person who operates the account BoulderCreek12; however, that editor has also not been blocked. This obviously does not make sense; since they are all used by the same person, either both IP adddresses and the BoulderCreek12 account should have been blocked, or none of them should have been. Please see the relevant discussion in this archive of Cailil's talk page [1].
I am not making this statement in order to attack Will Beback, J.delanoy, or anyone else. I am sure that Will thought he was doing the right thing in making that block, but it appears to have been a mistake. For my part, I know that I am doing the right thing by clarifying matters. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 08:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully submit that Will Beback should not have been the administrator to remove my ability to send emails, even if such a move was considered necessary for whatever reason. The fact is that I have been using them to criticise his block of 208.105.149.80, which, for the reasons indicated, is clearly inappropriate and unjustified. I note Will Beback's failure to say anything in defense of that block. Why not simply admit to making a mistake, Will? A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The three reasons I have given why the block of 208.105.149.80 was wrong are sufficient in themselves, in my view, but there is an additional reason, which shows that I am most unlikely to have been using that IP:
Back in January 2009, I repeatedly came into conflict with 208.105.149.80 and 74.70.44.210 (which as explained above, were being used by the same editor, who is also BoulderCreek12) on the conversion therapy article. I found the edits made by that editor (including his insistence that an approach to homosexuality that defined it as a mental disorder not be described as "pathologizing") to be unhelpful, and repeatedly reverted them.
Compare this edit by 208.105.149.80 [2] to this one by me [3]. See also conversion therapy talk page archive 8 [4].
Many of the edits I made to conversion therapy in February 2009 consisted of undoing things done by 208.105.149.80, removing tags he added, and so on. I could provide more diffs in support of this, but I don't see a need to, since the evidence of my conflicts with this IP is there in my edit history and the revision history of conversion therapy. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 21:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer ( talk) 04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Transformational ministry. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27#Transformational ministry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)