User talk:Gary Da Silva

June 2022
Hello, I'm Kvoou. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Parental alienation seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kvoou ❯❯❯  Talk  13:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * the original article is NOT neutral and proposed that PAS does not exist. Dr Pinki du Toit of the Sinovil centre South Africa advises that mothers are responsible for 85 to 90% of parental alienation. 50% of fathers in South Africa describe themselves as alienated. There is nothing NEAURTRAL about this subject it exists and is the systemic emotional, psychological, sexual and physical abuse of the child by the abusive or alienating parent - if you DO NOT want to do the changes as suggested you are a promotor of child abuse and promoting child abuse. Gary Da Silva (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If you wish to discuss the sourcing that shows that PAS is accepted within the medical community, you may do so. Two cautions. First, read WP:MEDRS, as the sourcing rules related to medicine are somewhat more stringent than other areas of the encyclopedia. Second, remain civil. Accusing other editors of promoting child abuse is not civil and could be viewed as a personal attack against those editors. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Either Wikipedia endorses the emotional, psychological, physical, mental and sexual abuse of children or it does not - please advise Gary Da Silva (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written from neutral point of view. Of course it does not endorse any abuse of children. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Parental alienation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 13:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The original article is patently and scientifically wrong. Does Wikipedia want to promote factually wrong information please advise. Further I EDITED the article I DID NOT REMOVE IT.
 * The article that is written does NOT reference ANY scientific literature - yet I am expected to back up my claims - SO BE IT. WE will revert with a scientifically written paper then. Gary Da Silva (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)