|
Why do you insist on systematically suppressing all discussion of alternative viewpoints in the LGBT parenting article? Your deletion of the Stacey-Biblarz quotation, that "researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior" is particularly mystifying, since this paper is cited in every recent version of the page. You justify deleting the comments of Stephen Nock on the grounds that he "lacks expertise in developmental psychology", but this completely misses the point of his objection, which is raised on statistical and methodolgical grounds. Please consider that Wikipedia's readers are best served by having access to a full range of views. Vigilius4 ( talk) 20:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Vigilius4
Any idea? Is it a repository of contemporary understanding? Is it a soapbox to parade your ideas on? When you insert hyperbole, you are not helping Wikipedia nor, as a result, your own case. We have a healthy difference of understanding of the subject. I believe we can come to consensus and make a much better article, however. Oh and if you wonder whether I am some ideologue against LGBT parenting...nope. Don't worry. I'm just sticking with the facts. Tobit2 ( talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed at the Edit warring noticeboard. You may respond in that discussion if you wish. Taking ownership of an article and ignoring the opinions of other editors is frowned upon here. If you continue to push your own viewpoint without following the consensus of other editors, you may be blocked for violating the edit warring policy. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please convert this to normal case, and replace where you have inserted this as a source using the decapitalised version. Mish ( talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
My revisions reflected what the paper cited says. In fact, what any unbiased research must say to be regarded as such. Science by definition works by showing that something is not, it is impossible in science to show that something is. The fact that something was not proved to be doesn't prove that it is. In logic this is argument from ignorance. Please if you like to inform readers of scientific research be truthful not biased. Being biased and irrational just hurts what both of us are trying to do here which is to inform that sexual orientation does not have any correlation to bad parenting. The facts suggest that but when you say "the scientific research shows gay parents fit" you loose people that would otherwise be convinced of this position. The scientific research investigated the issue and did not find a correlation. the research looked to see if there was any indication gay parents were unfit having not found a correlation the study reported its findings. Now as a matter of opinion one, including me, can be very much convinced gay parents are just as fit as any other parents but that is a conclusion a reasonable person draws from the findings it is not the findings themselves prove. So if you like to write, namely that it is reasonable to draw those conclusions from the research do so, but remember an encyclopedia really presents facts it does not draw conclusion. In any case, please do not discredit the research by in effect presenting it as biased. Remember you are not trying to convince people like me who already hold this position. Only by presenting science in a neutral light as it really works you will help other readers understand your position and not just disregarded as impartial and biased. This is not a forum of personal ideas and preferences, this is a open source encyclopedia. Anyway, the line in question will be changed (reverted) to reflect the source faithfully according to Wikipedia standards and practices shortly soon after you have a chance to read this. Thank you very much gorillasapiens sapiens ( talk) 01:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Your revisions didn't reflect what the paper cited says, since it says the same what I wrote to the article. It is prohibited to change it and I quoted the relevant Wikipedia policies on Talk Page of LGBT Parenting. Please stop misinterpreting sources. -- Destinero ( talk) 06:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits
"Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). ... The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents. ... One recent study used a probability sample and thus provides a valid basis for generalization to the population. Wainright et al. (2004) analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which drew its participants from a stratified random sample of all U.S. high schools with at least 30 students (AddHealth, 2004). The researchers compared 44 adolescents parented by female couples and 44 adolescents parented by heterosexual couples, matched on relevant demographic characteristics, and found no significant differences in psychological wellbeing or family and relationship processes (e.g., parental warmth, integration into one’s neighborhood). ... Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My concerns: I won't argue, I have read most all the article, you have misquoted them previously in the talk page as well as in the article. Not the findings or facts, but the the way you quoted the authors assertion of their conclusions or their opinions as if the authors themselves had mentioned them as facts.
Second, accusations of vandalism, when one disagrees with another editor is not warranted. Neither is asking for administrator precious time without contacting others first. I am new to Wikipedia, but I know administrators are busy volunteers. Frankly, they don't need this, False accusation, not following the process of resolving disputes directly,etc.
Let me address each of the your concerns. First, you wrote: "Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. ." No dispute have been raised about the findings. It is the wording of the finding conclusions, the wording of the opinion of the experts, that are being discussed.
Next, "Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents." "That is it a fact, not disputed either. Adding that the page raises no problem. This shows how the research was conducted, no prejudice, no bias, no side. Namely, They looked with an open mind whether there was any difference. By design, a link could have been found. This is neutral yet it guides the audience to the most reasonable conclusion, that if no link was found, well one believes that none exists and reasonably so.
Asserting the opinion itself, scientific research has consistently shown no link exist, is unscientific, and anybody trained in science, instead of learning from it, disregards as biased.
Next, "The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents." " No, it does not demonstrate, it only demonstrate that no link, difference was found. Now as a matter of opinion, expert opinion if you will, we conclude, we deduce that is so. Here is where the disagreement lies.
Next, If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample." "here. Great, good job. This right but look how it is sounds in the article. If no evidence is found, parents are capable. No, it was right at the first time, if parents are capable, no evidence is found, nor will it ever be found. But the researcher doesn't hold parents capable, and then conclude there is no evidence. One looks for evidence, having not found any, one concludes the parents are capable.
Second point says: This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." Yes evidently, if one was trying to affirm the parents were unfit, but there is no what was said, quite the opposite , what was said was that no evidence for unfitness was ever found, Moreover, in this dispute, the burden of proof lies in neither side because saying no link was found doesn't show, prove, demonstrate, imply, document, or deduce such a link exist, in fact, it actually implies it is unreasonable to hold such position.
Third point, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves By " fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.||| "It common, natural is understandable to consider opinion as fact when they personally relate to ourselves, the fact here is no link was found, the opinion is if that is the case consistency, then no link exists. The authors themselves didn't assert anything, why should we? Why change that? I submit, you did so only to make your point of view more convincing. To me, it makes it weaker because of the reasons mentioned, I think a neutral point of view is more encyclopedic, and so I will revert it to the original. Feel free to undo it. But let me know, so you can discuss it further. Thank you. gorillasapiens sapiens ( talk) 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I have explained why I have fully protected LGBT parenting at the above ANEW link. Please note that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they have not reverted 3 times in 24 hours. Please note that you are dangerously close to being blocked for such actions. Would you now reconsider your stance and return to consensus driven editing at the page concerned (and other articles) when that page reopens.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|My revert was the only one and it was fully and clearly justified in status and even now it is in Wikipedia namespace without change. Thus it coudn't be regarded as diruptive. I ask stop block of my account (7 days) immediately since it is unjustified and I expect an apology of VirtualSteve.}} -- Destinero ( talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Destinero ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My revert was the only one and it was fully and clearly justified in status and even now it is in Wikipedia namespace without change. Thus it coudn't be regarded as diruptive. I ask stop block of my account (7 days) immediately since it is unjustified and I expect an apology of VirtualSteve.
Decline reason:
Block rationale by blocking admin was sound. There was pattern of disruption without discussion. Cirt ( talk) 05:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Same-sex marriage. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing. As I said in the edit summary, take it to the talk page, substantial edits such as
this one require consensus, which you do not have as of the moment of this message. Continue to edit war as you have been, you will be reported. I see that you have had trouble with edit wars in the past, and I don't think the people who unblocked you will be too happy to hear you're doing it again. Stop. Since you are completely aware of policy, this is your first and only warning. —
Dæ
dαlus
Contribs
23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
Ckatz
chat
spy
20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that the page says favored by experts, which suggests that experts are uncertain but currently leaning toward one theory. That is very different than what you wrote ("it would appear to be biological"), which strongly suggests that it is biological. Look, I honestly don't care what the end result is, as I only ended up monitoring these particular pages because of past problems with an invalid reference source that was misused on a range of articles. However, when I see text being pasted more-or-less verbatim into multiple articles, and when that text substantially alters the information in the article, it warrants investigation. When said investigation reveals that the editor in question has had past issues with edit warring and lack of discussion with regard to a particular controversial topic area, issues that led to numerous warnings and even a block, it is cause for concern. The fact that you have been asked repeatedly to discuss potentially controversial changes, coupled with the fact that the articles you're editing specifically request such discussion prior to making such changes, underlines the need to make sure that these changes reflect consensus. I'm thus advising you to seek said consensus on the talk page first, rather than just dropping in your text. If you need assistance in coordinating said discussions, or perhaps even an RfC, I can certainly help. -- Ckatz chat spy 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)"A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts."
In Boy Scouts of America membership controversies you recently added an extended quotation from the APA. Unfortunately the quote was (a) in the section on the BSA's position not in the section on reactions to the BSA's positions, (b) misused the {{ cquote}} (see the template documentation for the Manual of Style references), (c) too long and (d) provided no context (e.g., when was it made and why). Please feel free to join the conversation at Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#APA_content but be aware that we are in the midst of overhauling the whole article so a close look at other discussions on that page is a good idea.-- Erp ( talk) 19:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, you have improperly reverted edits to the LGBT Parenting page on several occasions. Today is the most recent example. While I am trying to assume good faith, your behavior is making it difficult to sustain that assumption; every time I have seen any editor make mention of a perspective on this issue that is different from the perspective of the mainstream mental health community, you have gotten rid of it. I must say that I have had enough. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into an edit war with you. If you continue, I will consider taking the appropriate steps to have your edits blocked. I would respectfully ask that you please reconsider your behavior, which is both inconsiderate of other editors, very disrespectful, and completely violative of WP:NPOV. Thank you. 72.224.119.207 ( talk) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I keep noticing your work so I guess its time for these:
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For adding lots of great stuff backed by most reliable and best sources :) Phoenix of9 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
For improving LGBT articles! Phoenix of9 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
Here, this article talks about studies leading up to removal of homosexuality from DSM. [1]. You can use it in Czech wikipedia. Good luck dealing with Czech homophobes. And report them to admins if they cause any problems... Phoenix of9 06:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, I suppose to write you here, because no other place is more suitable. You just placed on Czech Wikipedia (anonymously, because you are blocked just now) the link to Jimbo Wales talk page and requesting response from "some" of czech Wikipedia users. Actually, you was asked by Jimbo Wales to ask those Wikipedia users to talk back on Jimbo's talk page, but YOU DID NOT DO IT that time, even if you know that I speak english. You did it now, after more than month, when the talk page is already archived and no response is possible. Anyway, my only response in that case would be: please look on Blocking records of Destinero on czech and english versions of the Wikipedia:
I'm leaving this as No COMMENT information, because this speaks a lot and gives to anybody (including Jimbo Wales) a clear picture about what type of Wikipedia user you are. Best regards, -- DeeMusil ( talk) 10:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Why do you consider effort to work DADT article towards GA status as a joke? Something I did wrong? Why? Explain please. I don't have enough experience with this. Thank you. -- Destinero ( talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Please join me as Talk:Paraphilia to rehash the previous discussions about why this needs to be in the article. Thanks. Jokestress ( talk) 17:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, the guidelines on alt text for images is hosted at MOS:ALT. Miyagawa (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Michael Lamb (professor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
OlYeller
Talktome
04:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like you to participate in the revision of the Homosexuality article. If you'd like to join the discussion:
Talk:Homosexuality#Splitting_and_revision_of_article
Pdorion (
talk)
23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
For your work on LGBT parenting :) Nowyouseeme talk2me 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
We all at times get too tight on a detail and a source and lose track of the bigger picture. I appreciate your being understanding and supportive of the effort, and thank you for all the good effort I've seen you do on a variety of articles. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 06:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I posted a comment under Talk:Environment and sexual orientation#Removal of APA section, which you had responded to earlier. I wish to make a change to the relevent text but I want to give you a chance to respond first. -- LogicDesigner ( talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop assuming
ownership of articles. You have established a clearly defined pattern of repeatedly making controversial changes to articles within a specific topic, often without appropriate efforts to seek consensus. Whether or not your changes are correct, the fact that you insist on using this form of disruptive behavior - such as
edit warring - is a violation of policy, which may lead to your being
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Ckatz
chat
spy
09:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Your assertions and impassioned arguments for the content at the MfD article is questionable in it's WP:AGF and WP:NPA conformity. I understand you feel strongly about the subpage, but please separate your personal creation of the page from responding to concerns raised about the document. Hasteur ( talk) 20:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Christopher Connor ( talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to weigh in directly on the MfD discussion on the LGBT Parenting FAQ, partly because I'm not 100% sure where I stand, but partly because your approach to me feels a bit like a WP:CANVAS. Having said that, I suspect that you will end up with a better FAQ and almost certainly a more bullet-proof one if you were to start it in some editing space and get other editors involved in shaping it before putting it into place. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
11:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
this looks to have tipped over into the realms of PA. Consider this a warning to stop. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Truetalk's talk page.
Do you check your wikipedia e-mail? If not, please do and respond. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tbhotch Talk C. 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Acather96 ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Destinero: Hey there! I'd like to let you know that in a Mediation Cabal mediation case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
I've made the following changes:
I would be most grateful if you would please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation, that's perfectly OK -- and you can stop at any time. If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thanks! NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Destinero. After you said you were changing your vote at the AfD for
Adult sexual interest in children, I updated your keep to keep delete, and wrote a note to you there to that effect. KimvdLinde, on my talkpage, said that that was inappropriate of me and that you should be left to do so yourself. If so, I apologize. So, if you do indeed want your vote changed (so that the closing admin correctly considers your opinion), do remember to do so.
— James Cantor (
talk)
22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You edited this article back in September to remove tags. You also removed the organization infobox, which shouldn't have been done. As a result, this made the organization's logo image that was in the infobox become an orphaned image and it was ultimately deleted from Wikipedia. Please be more careful in the future about what you are removing. Thanks. 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was not questioning verifiability but whether the statement had a neutral point of view. You simply wrote that religion is the reason LGBT people are discriminated against and you stated it as matter of fact without stating who said it and what the context was. This was not proportionate, even when you use a footnote. WP:NPOV advises: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Please try to avoid mistakes like that in the future, I tried to improve your formulation. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 17:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
American College of Pediatricians, you may be
blocked from editing. You have been repeated warned about your actions. Please do not add personal analysis, opinions, and other non-encyclopaedic text to the project.
Ckatz
chat
spy
09:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I just wish editors were a bit more collegial in these area. I'm tired of the constant WP:BATTLE that seems to be going on. Even the Israel-Palestine editors seem more reasonable as a whole. Now Destinero has added an entire paragraph to the lead of American College of Pediatricians that really is debating LGBT parenting, and has no correspondent in the body of the ACP article. Destinero, see WP:LEAD. Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read, very very carefully, WP:COPYVIO. "The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field accepted beyond dispute" is a direct copyright violation from http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf. Previous copyvios have already been cut from the article. do not ad more please! -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 10:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Destinero: This is a courtesy message to inform you that a ban by community consensus regarding certain editing behaviours of yours relating to topics on parenting and LGBT parenting has been proposed on the Administrators' noticeboard. The ban proposal is located here:
The text of the proposed ban is as follows:
Yours sincerely, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The above community editing restriction is now in effect [2]. Please be aware that you may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator for violation of this editing restriction and, in the instance of repeat violations, you will be permanently topic banned from parenting and LGBT parenting articles, and those related to them. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This new section not only violates WP:CIVIL, but WP:NPA, in that it attacks me directly, instead of civilly discussing content, as should be done. I've already refactored the header to something more civil, but I request that you refactor your own post, where you wrongly exclaim that I have an inability to follow sourced material.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Destinero's disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, per the AN/I discussion; you are strongly reminded to comment on content not editors. Your recent comments towards Dædαlus have been a little uncivil - there is no call for the sort of language you used. It is much better to edit in a collegial manner. To be specific; casting the idea that someone is either ignorant or deliberately ignoring something (be it source or policy) is too far and definitely non-constructive. This whole dispute was regarding a single word, I strongly suggest disengaging from the current dispute - and if it is an important matter come back to it when things are calmer and a compromise can be reached. To make clear; I have stood up for you a little in this because things can change, but you need to address these matters and avoid these issues in the future. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 09:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Destinero: You are cautioned that you must adhere to the terms of your community-imposed editing restriction when editing LGBT-related articles. In this edit, you inserted statements in "Wikipedia's voice" regarding veracity of sources. If you continue to violate your limited editing restriction, you may be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, as per the terms of the injunction. Yours, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion may be found here. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The article
Homosexuality you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Homosexuality for things which need to be addressed.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone restarted the straw poll re: including the SPLC's characterization in the lead. You are getting this because you participated in the last poll. Please see Talk:Family Research Council to give your input on its inclusion. W M O 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Destinero, while I may agree or not agree (ie: regardless of whether or not I agree) with your sentiments here, [5] [6] one generally does not add comments to a closed discussion. You might wish to retract your changes, and if you really feel the need to remake those comments, do it outside of the closed discussion. If you've got any questions, or need help with it, please let me know. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Destinero for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SarahStierch ( talk) 14:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Destinero. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Why do you insist on systematically suppressing all discussion of alternative viewpoints in the LGBT parenting article? Your deletion of the Stacey-Biblarz quotation, that "researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior" is particularly mystifying, since this paper is cited in every recent version of the page. You justify deleting the comments of Stephen Nock on the grounds that he "lacks expertise in developmental psychology", but this completely misses the point of his objection, which is raised on statistical and methodolgical grounds. Please consider that Wikipedia's readers are best served by having access to a full range of views. Vigilius4 ( talk) 20:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Vigilius4
Any idea? Is it a repository of contemporary understanding? Is it a soapbox to parade your ideas on? When you insert hyperbole, you are not helping Wikipedia nor, as a result, your own case. We have a healthy difference of understanding of the subject. I believe we can come to consensus and make a much better article, however. Oh and if you wonder whether I am some ideologue against LGBT parenting...nope. Don't worry. I'm just sticking with the facts. Tobit2 ( talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed at the Edit warring noticeboard. You may respond in that discussion if you wish. Taking ownership of an article and ignoring the opinions of other editors is frowned upon here. If you continue to push your own viewpoint without following the consensus of other editors, you may be blocked for violating the edit warring policy. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please convert this to normal case, and replace where you have inserted this as a source using the decapitalised version. Mish ( talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
My revisions reflected what the paper cited says. In fact, what any unbiased research must say to be regarded as such. Science by definition works by showing that something is not, it is impossible in science to show that something is. The fact that something was not proved to be doesn't prove that it is. In logic this is argument from ignorance. Please if you like to inform readers of scientific research be truthful not biased. Being biased and irrational just hurts what both of us are trying to do here which is to inform that sexual orientation does not have any correlation to bad parenting. The facts suggest that but when you say "the scientific research shows gay parents fit" you loose people that would otherwise be convinced of this position. The scientific research investigated the issue and did not find a correlation. the research looked to see if there was any indication gay parents were unfit having not found a correlation the study reported its findings. Now as a matter of opinion one, including me, can be very much convinced gay parents are just as fit as any other parents but that is a conclusion a reasonable person draws from the findings it is not the findings themselves prove. So if you like to write, namely that it is reasonable to draw those conclusions from the research do so, but remember an encyclopedia really presents facts it does not draw conclusion. In any case, please do not discredit the research by in effect presenting it as biased. Remember you are not trying to convince people like me who already hold this position. Only by presenting science in a neutral light as it really works you will help other readers understand your position and not just disregarded as impartial and biased. This is not a forum of personal ideas and preferences, this is a open source encyclopedia. Anyway, the line in question will be changed (reverted) to reflect the source faithfully according to Wikipedia standards and practices shortly soon after you have a chance to read this. Thank you very much gorillasapiens sapiens ( talk) 01:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Your revisions didn't reflect what the paper cited says, since it says the same what I wrote to the article. It is prohibited to change it and I quoted the relevant Wikipedia policies on Talk Page of LGBT Parenting. Please stop misinterpreting sources. -- Destinero ( talk) 06:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits
"Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). ... The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents. ... One recent study used a probability sample and thus provides a valid basis for generalization to the population. Wainright et al. (2004) analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which drew its participants from a stratified random sample of all U.S. high schools with at least 30 students (AddHealth, 2004). The researchers compared 44 adolescents parented by female couples and 44 adolescents parented by heterosexual couples, matched on relevant demographic characteristics, and found no significant differences in psychological wellbeing or family and relationship processes (e.g., parental warmth, integration into one’s neighborhood). ... Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My concerns: I won't argue, I have read most all the article, you have misquoted them previously in the talk page as well as in the article. Not the findings or facts, but the the way you quoted the authors assertion of their conclusions or their opinions as if the authors themselves had mentioned them as facts.
Second, accusations of vandalism, when one disagrees with another editor is not warranted. Neither is asking for administrator precious time without contacting others first. I am new to Wikipedia, but I know administrators are busy volunteers. Frankly, they don't need this, False accusation, not following the process of resolving disputes directly,etc.
Let me address each of the your concerns. First, you wrote: "Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. ." No dispute have been raised about the findings. It is the wording of the finding conclusions, the wording of the opinion of the experts, that are being discussed.
Next, "Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents." "That is it a fact, not disputed either. Adding that the page raises no problem. This shows how the research was conducted, no prejudice, no bias, no side. Namely, They looked with an open mind whether there was any difference. By design, a link could have been found. This is neutral yet it guides the audience to the most reasonable conclusion, that if no link was found, well one believes that none exists and reasonably so.
Asserting the opinion itself, scientific research has consistently shown no link exist, is unscientific, and anybody trained in science, instead of learning from it, disregards as biased.
Next, "The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents." " No, it does not demonstrate, it only demonstrate that no link, difference was found. Now as a matter of opinion, expert opinion if you will, we conclude, we deduce that is so. Here is where the disagreement lies.
Next, If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample." "here. Great, good job. This right but look how it is sounds in the article. If no evidence is found, parents are capable. No, it was right at the first time, if parents are capable, no evidence is found, nor will it ever be found. But the researcher doesn't hold parents capable, and then conclude there is no evidence. One looks for evidence, having not found any, one concludes the parents are capable.
Second point says: This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." Yes evidently, if one was trying to affirm the parents were unfit, but there is no what was said, quite the opposite , what was said was that no evidence for unfitness was ever found, Moreover, in this dispute, the burden of proof lies in neither side because saying no link was found doesn't show, prove, demonstrate, imply, document, or deduce such a link exist, in fact, it actually implies it is unreasonable to hold such position.
Third point, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves By " fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.||| "It common, natural is understandable to consider opinion as fact when they personally relate to ourselves, the fact here is no link was found, the opinion is if that is the case consistency, then no link exists. The authors themselves didn't assert anything, why should we? Why change that? I submit, you did so only to make your point of view more convincing. To me, it makes it weaker because of the reasons mentioned, I think a neutral point of view is more encyclopedic, and so I will revert it to the original. Feel free to undo it. But let me know, so you can discuss it further. Thank you. gorillasapiens sapiens ( talk) 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I have explained why I have fully protected LGBT parenting at the above ANEW link. Please note that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they have not reverted 3 times in 24 hours. Please note that you are dangerously close to being blocked for such actions. Would you now reconsider your stance and return to consensus driven editing at the page concerned (and other articles) when that page reopens.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|My revert was the only one and it was fully and clearly justified in status and even now it is in Wikipedia namespace without change. Thus it coudn't be regarded as diruptive. I ask stop block of my account (7 days) immediately since it is unjustified and I expect an apology of VirtualSteve.}} -- Destinero ( talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Destinero ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My revert was the only one and it was fully and clearly justified in status and even now it is in Wikipedia namespace without change. Thus it coudn't be regarded as diruptive. I ask stop block of my account (7 days) immediately since it is unjustified and I expect an apology of VirtualSteve.
Decline reason:
Block rationale by blocking admin was sound. There was pattern of disruption without discussion. Cirt ( talk) 05:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Same-sex marriage. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing. As I said in the edit summary, take it to the talk page, substantial edits such as
this one require consensus, which you do not have as of the moment of this message. Continue to edit war as you have been, you will be reported. I see that you have had trouble with edit wars in the past, and I don't think the people who unblocked you will be too happy to hear you're doing it again. Stop. Since you are completely aware of policy, this is your first and only warning. —
Dæ
dαlus
Contribs
23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
Ckatz
chat
spy
20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that the page says favored by experts, which suggests that experts are uncertain but currently leaning toward one theory. That is very different than what you wrote ("it would appear to be biological"), which strongly suggests that it is biological. Look, I honestly don't care what the end result is, as I only ended up monitoring these particular pages because of past problems with an invalid reference source that was misused on a range of articles. However, when I see text being pasted more-or-less verbatim into multiple articles, and when that text substantially alters the information in the article, it warrants investigation. When said investigation reveals that the editor in question has had past issues with edit warring and lack of discussion with regard to a particular controversial topic area, issues that led to numerous warnings and even a block, it is cause for concern. The fact that you have been asked repeatedly to discuss potentially controversial changes, coupled with the fact that the articles you're editing specifically request such discussion prior to making such changes, underlines the need to make sure that these changes reflect consensus. I'm thus advising you to seek said consensus on the talk page first, rather than just dropping in your text. If you need assistance in coordinating said discussions, or perhaps even an RfC, I can certainly help. -- Ckatz chat spy 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)"A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts."
In Boy Scouts of America membership controversies you recently added an extended quotation from the APA. Unfortunately the quote was (a) in the section on the BSA's position not in the section on reactions to the BSA's positions, (b) misused the {{ cquote}} (see the template documentation for the Manual of Style references), (c) too long and (d) provided no context (e.g., when was it made and why). Please feel free to join the conversation at Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#APA_content but be aware that we are in the midst of overhauling the whole article so a close look at other discussions on that page is a good idea.-- Erp ( talk) 19:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, you have improperly reverted edits to the LGBT Parenting page on several occasions. Today is the most recent example. While I am trying to assume good faith, your behavior is making it difficult to sustain that assumption; every time I have seen any editor make mention of a perspective on this issue that is different from the perspective of the mainstream mental health community, you have gotten rid of it. I must say that I have had enough. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into an edit war with you. If you continue, I will consider taking the appropriate steps to have your edits blocked. I would respectfully ask that you please reconsider your behavior, which is both inconsiderate of other editors, very disrespectful, and completely violative of WP:NPOV. Thank you. 72.224.119.207 ( talk) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I keep noticing your work so I guess its time for these:
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For adding lots of great stuff backed by most reliable and best sources :) Phoenix of9 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
For improving LGBT articles! Phoenix of9 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
Here, this article talks about studies leading up to removal of homosexuality from DSM. [1]. You can use it in Czech wikipedia. Good luck dealing with Czech homophobes. And report them to admins if they cause any problems... Phoenix of9 06:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, I suppose to write you here, because no other place is more suitable. You just placed on Czech Wikipedia (anonymously, because you are blocked just now) the link to Jimbo Wales talk page and requesting response from "some" of czech Wikipedia users. Actually, you was asked by Jimbo Wales to ask those Wikipedia users to talk back on Jimbo's talk page, but YOU DID NOT DO IT that time, even if you know that I speak english. You did it now, after more than month, when the talk page is already archived and no response is possible. Anyway, my only response in that case would be: please look on Blocking records of Destinero on czech and english versions of the Wikipedia:
I'm leaving this as No COMMENT information, because this speaks a lot and gives to anybody (including Jimbo Wales) a clear picture about what type of Wikipedia user you are. Best regards, -- DeeMusil ( talk) 10:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Why do you consider effort to work DADT article towards GA status as a joke? Something I did wrong? Why? Explain please. I don't have enough experience with this. Thank you. -- Destinero ( talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Please join me as Talk:Paraphilia to rehash the previous discussions about why this needs to be in the article. Thanks. Jokestress ( talk) 17:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, the guidelines on alt text for images is hosted at MOS:ALT. Miyagawa (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Michael Lamb (professor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
OlYeller
Talktome
04:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like you to participate in the revision of the Homosexuality article. If you'd like to join the discussion:
Talk:Homosexuality#Splitting_and_revision_of_article
Pdorion (
talk)
23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
For your work on LGBT parenting :) Nowyouseeme talk2me 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
We all at times get too tight on a detail and a source and lose track of the bigger picture. I appreciate your being understanding and supportive of the effort, and thank you for all the good effort I've seen you do on a variety of articles. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 06:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I posted a comment under Talk:Environment and sexual orientation#Removal of APA section, which you had responded to earlier. I wish to make a change to the relevent text but I want to give you a chance to respond first. -- LogicDesigner ( talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop assuming
ownership of articles. You have established a clearly defined pattern of repeatedly making controversial changes to articles within a specific topic, often without appropriate efforts to seek consensus. Whether or not your changes are correct, the fact that you insist on using this form of disruptive behavior - such as
edit warring - is a violation of policy, which may lead to your being
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Ckatz
chat
spy
09:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Your assertions and impassioned arguments for the content at the MfD article is questionable in it's WP:AGF and WP:NPA conformity. I understand you feel strongly about the subpage, but please separate your personal creation of the page from responding to concerns raised about the document. Hasteur ( talk) 20:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Christopher Connor ( talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to weigh in directly on the MfD discussion on the LGBT Parenting FAQ, partly because I'm not 100% sure where I stand, but partly because your approach to me feels a bit like a WP:CANVAS. Having said that, I suspect that you will end up with a better FAQ and almost certainly a more bullet-proof one if you were to start it in some editing space and get other editors involved in shaping it before putting it into place. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
11:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
this looks to have tipped over into the realms of PA. Consider this a warning to stop. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Truetalk's talk page.
Do you check your wikipedia e-mail? If not, please do and respond. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tbhotch Talk C. 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Acather96 ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Destinero: Hey there! I'd like to let you know that in a Mediation Cabal mediation case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
I've made the following changes:
I would be most grateful if you would please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation, that's perfectly OK -- and you can stop at any time. If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thanks! NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Destinero. After you said you were changing your vote at the AfD for
Adult sexual interest in children, I updated your keep to keep delete, and wrote a note to you there to that effect. KimvdLinde, on my talkpage, said that that was inappropriate of me and that you should be left to do so yourself. If so, I apologize. So, if you do indeed want your vote changed (so that the closing admin correctly considers your opinion), do remember to do so.
— James Cantor (
talk)
22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You edited this article back in September to remove tags. You also removed the organization infobox, which shouldn't have been done. As a result, this made the organization's logo image that was in the infobox become an orphaned image and it was ultimately deleted from Wikipedia. Please be more careful in the future about what you are removing. Thanks. 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was not questioning verifiability but whether the statement had a neutral point of view. You simply wrote that religion is the reason LGBT people are discriminated against and you stated it as matter of fact without stating who said it and what the context was. This was not proportionate, even when you use a footnote. WP:NPOV advises: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Please try to avoid mistakes like that in the future, I tried to improve your formulation. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 17:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
American College of Pediatricians, you may be
blocked from editing. You have been repeated warned about your actions. Please do not add personal analysis, opinions, and other non-encyclopaedic text to the project.
Ckatz
chat
spy
09:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I just wish editors were a bit more collegial in these area. I'm tired of the constant WP:BATTLE that seems to be going on. Even the Israel-Palestine editors seem more reasonable as a whole. Now Destinero has added an entire paragraph to the lead of American College of Pediatricians that really is debating LGBT parenting, and has no correspondent in the body of the ACP article. Destinero, see WP:LEAD. Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read, very very carefully, WP:COPYVIO. "The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field accepted beyond dispute" is a direct copyright violation from http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf. Previous copyvios have already been cut from the article. do not ad more please! -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 10:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Destinero: This is a courtesy message to inform you that a ban by community consensus regarding certain editing behaviours of yours relating to topics on parenting and LGBT parenting has been proposed on the Administrators' noticeboard. The ban proposal is located here:
The text of the proposed ban is as follows:
Yours sincerely, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The above community editing restriction is now in effect [2]. Please be aware that you may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator for violation of this editing restriction and, in the instance of repeat violations, you will be permanently topic banned from parenting and LGBT parenting articles, and those related to them. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This new section not only violates WP:CIVIL, but WP:NPA, in that it attacks me directly, instead of civilly discussing content, as should be done. I've already refactored the header to something more civil, but I request that you refactor your own post, where you wrongly exclaim that I have an inability to follow sourced material.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Destinero's disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, per the AN/I discussion; you are strongly reminded to comment on content not editors. Your recent comments towards Dædαlus have been a little uncivil - there is no call for the sort of language you used. It is much better to edit in a collegial manner. To be specific; casting the idea that someone is either ignorant or deliberately ignoring something (be it source or policy) is too far and definitely non-constructive. This whole dispute was regarding a single word, I strongly suggest disengaging from the current dispute - and if it is an important matter come back to it when things are calmer and a compromise can be reached. To make clear; I have stood up for you a little in this because things can change, but you need to address these matters and avoid these issues in the future. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 09:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Destinero: You are cautioned that you must adhere to the terms of your community-imposed editing restriction when editing LGBT-related articles. In this edit, you inserted statements in "Wikipedia's voice" regarding veracity of sources. If you continue to violate your limited editing restriction, you may be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, as per the terms of the injunction. Yours, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion may be found here. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The article
Homosexuality you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Homosexuality for things which need to be addressed.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone restarted the straw poll re: including the SPLC's characterization in the lead. You are getting this because you participated in the last poll. Please see Talk:Family Research Council to give your input on its inclusion. W M O 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Destinero, while I may agree or not agree (ie: regardless of whether or not I agree) with your sentiments here, [5] [6] one generally does not add comments to a closed discussion. You might wish to retract your changes, and if you really feel the need to remake those comments, do it outside of the closed discussion. If you've got any questions, or need help with it, please let me know. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Destinero for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SarahStierch ( talk) 14:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Destinero. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)