User talk:Alexdaniel9

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Gething
Hello Alexdaniel9,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Michael Gething for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,  Dewritech (talk)  12:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Kennedy Baptist College, Alexdaniel9!

Wikipedia editor TCN7JM just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I marked Kennedy Baptist College as patrolled, but remember to add a reflist in the future. – TC N7 JM  03:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on TCN7JM's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Michael Gething
I have removed the section about the Tahlia Burns case, for reasons explained at WP:COATRACK (particularly the section The Attack Article) and WP:UNDUE. If you disagree, please do not re-add it, but say so below here and we can discuss it and get further opinions. For background, the way Wikipedia works is at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, where I have just done the "revert" bit, and the general policy for articles about living people is at WP:Biographies of living persons.

Regarding the photo, I am not an expert on image copyright, but I shall be extremely surprised if applies to a 1990 photograph of a living person. Copyright is normally with the photographer unless he has assigned it to an employer or publisher, and that remains true even if the photographer is unknown. I will ask at the Common help-desk.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not mark changes to content as "minor edits".
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Lady of  Shalott  16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Romantic attraction as part of sexual orientation, and sex and gender distinction
Hello, Alexdaniel9. Regarding this edit you made, which I reverted, and this edit you made, which I also reverted: See this source from the American Psychological Association and this source from the American Psychiatric Association; those are authoritative scientific organizations, and they include romantic (which is an aspect of emotional) as part of defining sexual orientation. Going by what authoritative scientific organizations state is more appropriate than going by dictionary definitions for the topic of sexual orientation. For example, see WP:MEDRS (a guideline for using medical sources for medical topics). The study of sexual orientation is a part of the psychology/psychiatry fields, and is therefore partly a medical topic. Thus...when it comes to defining people's mental states and how that affects their behaviors, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are more appropriate. Including "romantic" has also been discussed before; see Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 22 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 42. And WP:CONSENSUS was for keeping "romantic." As for sex vs. gender, see the Sex and gender distinction article that I mentioned in this edit summary and linked to in the above heading. Also see Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)