User talk:AshleyBumgarner

January 2020
Hello, I'm Merlin04. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Ex-gay movement—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Merlin04 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2020 (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 Ex-gay movement, you may be blocked from editing. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What do I need to do to add changes? This article speaks from the perspective of an LGBTQ+ supporter and not from the perspective of an ex-gay. This is biased information and is lacking the proper information from first hand knowledge of an ex-gay individual. This is deeply concerning and needs addressed. AshleyBumgarner (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles are written from reliable sources and must maintain a neutral point of view. Your (or anyone else's) first-hand knowledge is not a valid basis for altering any article, as it is not verifiable by readers. If you can find an independent, published, reliable sources for what you are trying to add, you can discuss the merits of it on the article's talk page. However, removing properly-sourced content that you happen to disagree with is absolutely not acceptable, and if you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing to prevent you further damaging the encyclopedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for letting me know. If I get all of my info, there shouldn’t be any more problems. Sounds good. I’ll get my sources together. AshleyBumgarner (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I said. Having independent, published, reliable sources is a minimum requirement, but it is not a guarantee of inclusion. The information in the article has to maintain a neutral point of view. You have a very specific point of view on this subject, which is clearly not the mainstream view of this subject. So you are welcome to present your sources and viewpoint on the talk page, but you should only add to the article if there is a consensus of editors there in favor of your proposed changes. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

How is the ‘mainstream view,’ as you said, neutral? AshleyBumgarner (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the one reported in mainstream sources, which is what Wikipedia records. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not understanding what is meant by ‘mainstream sources.’ Could you give an example? AshleyBumgarner (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for full details, but good examples are general media sources like Newsweek, ABC News and the New York Times and subject-specific authorities like the American Psychological Association, and scientific journals like Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice and the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. All of these are sourced in the current article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)