User talk:Historyguy1965

Marriage
First, please give reasons for your reversion. Second, check the source before you reject the corrections. Third, the added quotation IS part of the quoted material and deserves to be included. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The cited definition originally is from Confucius, hence why it said "According to Confucius..." the added material was not from Confucius but by the author himself, it's misleading to include -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you averse to the inclusion of a mention to adultery in marriage? Is it the source? If so provide another contrary source or stop lecturing on your vision of marriage. Mrdthree (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because you say "all cultures" and put it in the lede, which makes absolutely no sense. And I'm not the only one who says this, see the discussion, why is it that you and Adaprof01 are the only ones who want it in? Dare I say it has something to do with a pro-religious bias? I wouldn't doubt it -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a mild pro-religious bias, but not in the sense that I am religious, but in the sense that I believe in moral codes and respect organizations that have them. My orientation is mostly conservative so I tend to agree with religious organizations. That said, I would settle for: "Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage".Mrdthree (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the appropriate section, is that okay with you? You're clearly not as biased as Afaprof01 (have you seen the edits he made) and you seem, in my opinion, to want to positively contribute to the article. What do you think of the move or do you insist on it being in the lede? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reporting Users?
Hi. Sorry for not responding to your question sooner, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia just at the moment so I'm not reading my messages often. If you're having a dispute with another Wikipedian about the content of an article, our procedures at Dispute resolution should help you come to an amicable conclusion. If you need to report abuse by another user to administrators for speedy action, you can use Administrator intervention against vandalism or, more generally, Administrators' noticeboard. Hope this helps. --Nick Boalch \ talk 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mariage again
"Undid -- this makes no sense, norms is sociological, marriage is diverse, You even removed "religion" - the same thing YOU suggest we put in, can't you simply decide already?"
 * No - because I am trying to improve the article and not promote any one issue. Hardyplants (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage
What do you think you're doing? You just completely reverted an entire paragraph that was the subject of a broad consensus back to an old paragraph that has been rejected as biased. Your edits have utterly no place on that article, and you should have consulted with others before making such a drastic change. TheFix63 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Two people agreeing in a matter of 5 minutes does not emphasize a consensus -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep it on the talk page. Please post on my page only if it's really necessary. Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the consensus was forged over days with several editors, as you'll see if you take the time to read the talk page. You haven't tried to establish a consensus for a single one of your changes. TheFix63 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need to stop edit warring. SEEK A CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE BEFORE MAKING MAJOR CHANGES, like the inclusion of "marriage equality" in the very first paragraph. TheFix63 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about any concerns you have about my bias here, OK? There's no reason to keep bringing them up during other discussions on the article talk page. To be clear: I have a bias. You too have a bias. That's the nature of things. Now, your concerns?Ragazz (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - BiasRagazz (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, please, please stop edit warring! All changes to the lead MUST go through the talk page. You're going to get the page locked. Is that what you're trying to do?Ragazz (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So far there are four editors on Same-sex marriage who have called you on your edit-warring. Would you please stop?Ragazz (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel like the following statement of yours was productive: "Personally I believe this to be a way of forcing the polygamy issue into the article." Could you please limit your critiques of my proposals to the merits of the proposals, and stop assuming that they are an attempt to insert an agenda on my part? If you must discuss your concerns about this, at least take them up with me on my talk page. Remember, a Wikipedia article on a controversial topic should outline all notable sides of an argument.Ragazz (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm doing at all, I'm just being sincere in my critique of the article, every article should go through the same due process -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)There is already a consensus to include a mention of polygamy in the article anyway
 * 2)Your statement that I am attempting to "dress up an article and claim it to be a viable source in order to enforce logical fallacies" is just what I have said: assuming that I am attempting to insert an agenda.Ragazz (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article itself even claims there's nothing wrong with using the slippery slope logical fallacy, that should tell you enough -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why my interest in the SSM topics? While I'm in an ol'-fashioned, legal-in-all-50, sex-mixin' marriage myself, kids and all, I do have friends and non-immediate relatives who have or may desire SSMs... but I don't think that's the important part, nor the fact that I live in California (although that does increase awareness), nor that I have close relatives whose marriages are only possible thanks to Loving v. Virginia. Really, it seems to me the "well, duh!" issue of the moment. It may not be the absolute most important thing, but if you ask me what's the right path to take on the economy, my answer is "danged if I know". Same with the health care situation, the war in Afghanistan, and so forth, the answer is the same. Should government benefits be isolated to mixed-sex couples? I've waited more than a decade for someone to give me a reason why that wasn't just blather and nonsense, and that's yet to pan out. It's a civil rights issue, it's an easy one,and dang, if we can't fight for the obvious ones...

Plus, once you dip your toe into editing one part of Wikipedia, it's easy to get caught up in it - you see one POV editor trying to pull the same trick again and again, or you see yet another person invoking a certain study that doesn't actually say what they claim. I imagine that getting into any particular zone of Wikipedia gets you into a feedback loop, working within that culture, getting protective of your edits from destructive folks, and so on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

POV
Since you want to talk about my POV so bad, here it is. I am a liberal. I strongly support civil unions for gay couples. To me personally, the word "marriage" means a union between one man and one woman. I oppose the use of the word "marriage" for same-sex unions by the government, but I don't really feel that strongly about it. I feel that the issues of world peace, the economic crisis and the environment are all much more important than the issue of whether or not to label gay unions as marriage, as long as those unions have the same protections. So I guess you could say that I'm literally pretty neutral about the issue, as in I don't feel very strongly either way.

As per my edits, I always try to follow the guidlines at WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:NPOV. My concern with the Same-sex marriage article is, ironically, that it is a bit slanted with loaded language (homophobia as a "motivation" for the opposition listed next to "reasons" given, "marriage equality" as a synonym in the first sentence) and POV interpretations of sources.

I am writing this because every time we have a disagreement, you accuse me of inserting POV. Of course as an editor here, it shouldn't matter what my personal views are. Please understand that I am doing my best to follow the Wikipedia guidlines provided, which pretty much prevent POV from being inserted when followed correctly. I am looking forward to working together to make it a better article.Ragazz (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have shared something about myself with you in order that you might see that we have some common ground so that we could work together more productively. I find your comments on my talk page to be very hurtful, and I don't see how they were meant to be productive.Ragazz (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and consensus
Please consult the talk page before making controversial changes to an article (as you did in same-sex marriage), especially when the issues in question are already being addressed there. Ignoring the consensus process can cause edit warring as well as conflicts between editors. Thank you.Ragazz (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
You should be aware that several of your recent comments have violated any number of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Should you continue in like manner, the possibility of being sanctioned in some way is a very real one. I would urge you to read WP:TPG, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, and, perhaps, at least look at the pages contained in Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Most of the editors around here are willing to engage in reasonable conversation, and in fact those that aren't tend not to stay very long. There is every reason to believe that, should you also engage in reasonable discussion, your own edits and proposed edits would be given every consideration due to them, taking into account WP:N and WP:V, among others. Should you believe that your contributions do not receive reasonable consideration, by all means contact an administrator who can be found in Category:Wikipedia administrators, leave a message on the appropriate administrator's noticeboard which can be found at WP:AN, or try to engage in the dispute resolution process as per WP:DR. However, should you continue in the way you have often edited to date, the chances of other editors reacting to the perhaps unpleasant approach you seem to at times taken is a real one, and, however valid your points might be, they might react more to the unpleasant messenger than to the reasonable message. I would urge you to begin to engage in other editors in a more civil, reasonable, and productive manner. Thank you.
 * P. S. You should also be aware that, particularly for subjects which are controversial, making any edit which is not itself clearly and blindingly obviously neutral will, very likely, be challenged in some way, and, yes, in some cases, even then, if the person challenging is not themselves particularly neutral or if other considerations, like WP:DUE or some other policy or guideline, might be relevant. Trust me on this. I deal with material related to [{Scientology]], Falun Gong, and God knows what all else. Particularly when dealing with topics that are controversial, it is generally best all around to propose any changes on the talk page first, wait to see if consensus for the changes exists, and then make the changes. Otherwise, even if the changes are valid ones, it can and occasionally does happen that articles are locked and/or editors blocked for a while because of such conduct. It would also, of course, probably not help the image of the person making such edits in the eyes of the others he deals with. John Carter (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comments about, in effect, an uneven playing field, yeah, you're right. One of the problems we often encounter around here, unfortunately, is that articles about somewhat controversial matters, like same-sex marriage, articles where the controversy is less about the subject itself than about its specific applications or specific circumtances dealing with it, and like Falun Gong, is that they will more often than not tend to draw editors from the most outspoken side in that discussion, and, in effect, lead to opposing viewpoints being overwhelmed or causing those who hold such opinions to withdraw from the article. Like happened with the Falun Gong material, this can often lead to situations in which one side effectively dictates the content, and can lead to real POV problems in the article. So, yeah, we do tend to give the "opposing voices" a bit more leeway, provided what they're adding meets standards of course. If we didn't, then we probably would have a lot more articles with obvious POV problems than we do. So, yeah, it sometimes can be a real pain, but that's one of the prices we pay for trying to ensure the articles are neutral and NPOV. It's almost always a difficult discussion regarding those two points, but evidently over the years the people who watch such things found this to be the least problematic way of approaching it. I don't find that last point particularly easy to believe myself, actually, but I've been in at least a few cases where it seems to have been the case. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

History of same-sex unions
Why do you keep putting in the bit about the Theodosian Code? It's already in there. Why does it need to be in the article twice? Did you not notice that? Please be more careful.Ragazz (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't finished my edits yet, I had multiple tabs open and had accidentally clicked "save page" as opposed to "show preview" -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain this edit that you made? Aren't you a history professor? This is very poorly cited.

Documented cases in this region claimed these unions were temporary pederastic relationships.

Ragazz (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, you keep trying to equivocate pederesty to homosexual unions, this would suffice if I'd seen similar edits in regards to the Marriage article and pedophile, but it seems more appropriate to mention age of consent. Not to mention, seeing sources like "HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE, Supplement 11A, 2005" isn't exactly convincing -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the sources have nothing to do with Greece. This is very poor editing, controversial or not. Check your sources!Ragazz (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were your sources! I didn't add them at all -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You moved them, and placed them in such a way that they are not supporting the new claim that you made. Please don't make me get other editors or admin involved. This is ridiculous.Ragazz (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't add those sources, I moved a sentence that you originally moved. If the sources are invalid, that isn't my fault, I didn't add them and am under no obligation to verify them, that isn't my job. You seem to be edging on WP:AOBF and if anyone see's my past edits they'll see that is absolutely not the case -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!
Thanks for your recent changes!!

Heterosexism
Re: your recent revert on Heterosexism. Please see Talk:Heterosexism.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove your WP:PA accusatory comments
Please remove your WP:PA accusatory comments—now proven false by User:Daedalus969—in Talk:Marriage where you allege I was responsible for the sockpuppets that suddenly appeared on the scene. You obviously jumped to a slanderous conclusion. According to WP:RPA I am entitled to delete your comments. However, User:Daedalus969 has asked me to request you to remove them yourself. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. That communicates clearly enough, but I would have gone with: "I was truly hurt that you thought I was responsible for the sockpuppets.  I could remove the accusation myself, but I want to give you the opportunity to remove it, because it would make me feel better if you apologized."  Same meaning, much more likely to get positive results. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to apologize for having legitimate suspicions about several users, several users (by the way) which were rightfully banned. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, how about this then? Historyguy, in the interests of harmonious editing, can you tone down your remarks a bit? I'm thinking here of your comment at the Marriage RFC, which you didn't really need to make. And since no determination of socking by Afaprof01 was made, you're not going to repeat such an accusation in future, right? If suspicious circumstances arise in future, that will be different, but for now, the matter should be closed IMO. Franamax (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no problem with that. Thank you Franamax -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Kudos
for your help -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All in a day's work! :) Gabbe (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

half truth
Have you read the first paragraph of Homosexual Agenda? SSM is a major part of that, including the notion gays can adopt children, etc. You should read it. Just when people place non favorable SSM POV on here, they are attacked. PeshawarPat (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. Your edits are disruptive and provide false credibility to gay "marriage" PeshawarPat (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:PeshawarPat. Thank you..—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please comment and give your opinion as an active editor of homosexuality-related articles on English Wikipedia, thank you very much
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contradicting_informations_between_English_and_Czech_Wikipedia.3B_Czech_Wikipedia_presents_propaganda_for_a_year_and_nobody_care_of_it_there --Destinero (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What it means.
I was looking at your comment for this edit, and my best guess is that she's against single mothers, as well. From what I understand, having two parents (of whatever gender) works out better for children than a single parent. Dylan Flaherty  07:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the ambiguity alone is enough for WP:UNDUE? What do you think? - Historyguy1965 (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure, so I followed the link and found it was an article in favor of abstinence-only sex ed, with no comment about same-sex marriages or anything relevant. If that's the only support we have, then there's no choice but to pull the entire line. Dylan Flaherty  09:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)