User talk:K. the Surveyor

Welcome to my talk page! If you would like to discuss edits I made in the past 24 hours to a specific page and you have not yet posted to its talk page, then please consider posting there so that all may participate. Otherwise you are very welcome to leave me a message. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, K. the Surveyor! I am Elektrik Shoos and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  elektrik SHOOS  07:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Latin America, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to be covered under WP:CALC, though perhaps it would be good to include the intermediate totals before expressing in percentages for the sake of transparency. K. the Surveyor (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop inappropriate editations!
Please stop misrepresenting reliable scientific research just because you perhaps don't accept facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=388314172&oldid=383273923 First, stop doing inappropriate comparisons. Second, educate yourself to avoid typically religious and conservative fraud and manipulation: "When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf Then edit Wikipedia articles. --Destinero (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Surveyor, as a strong Catholic, I feel very uncomfortable being placed in the role of apologist for the gays, but your edits are unacceptable. I have long ago learned that, when talking to those who do not share my religious beliefs, arguments predicated upon those beliefs carry no weight. To convince, we must meet them on their own ground while staying on the straight and narrow road. With truth on our side, we cannot afford the indulgence of a lazy lie. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to twist facts or distort research, just highlight a few results that are backed up and also present some Catholic opinions in the opinion section. If my editing has seemed biased then I apologize, but I think most of it has been justified. Where people have pointed out better ways to include the material I have tried to respond.
 * I actually am also Catholic, but my political opinions bear scant relation to my religious beliefs. For example, I see nothing wrong with using birth control. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * K - you are way over the limit on reversions on this page, and if you keep it up I'm going to have to report you for edit warring. You're not listening to the comments people are making in talk (or at least you're not responding to them meaningfully), so please back off and come back at it with a stronger set of sources or a more balanced section.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not make any more edits to the page without agreement. The reason I made so many before is because often comments without action are simply ignored. Now each edit has recieved a response. There is however no way to generalize about the three separate edits I made. The reversion of the most recent one seems very out there as it uses the same APA source as was already on the page! I'm not sure the reverter understood that. K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV on In vitro fertilisation
You admit the edit is in breach of NPOV yet you revert to add it back, could you explain why you have added content which is in breach of our policy? Mo ainm ~Talk  20:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I heavily edited it before adding it. Hopefully it isn't NPOV now. The doctor involved may be stripped of his license, and that seems worthy of inclusion. K. the Surveyor (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made another slight change to the section, think it is more neutral now. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Destinero
Sorry, but your revert did not make sense. The editor in question made several POV changes, mirroring similar changes he has made in the past. As such, they were removed. If consensus develops through discussion to restore them, that would be a different matter. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz chat spy  22:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Lesbian Literature
I made a comment on the talk page of that article that you've retitled and deleted text from. Although you posted repeatedly that the article "needs a lot of work," I don't see how your changes improve it at all. Please consider reverting your changes and seeking greater input from other editors.

Voila-pourquoi (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody replied on the talk page, so I thought it likely that this article had few regular followers. The article has no sources, and many statements seem pretty questionable and random. If you have specific ideas about how to improve the article, let's discuss on its talk page. K. the Surveyor (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you've deleted even more text than I originally realized, and have expanded the scope to include all kinds of texts about "women who have sexual relations with other women", not just literary. I don't understand your purpose in modfiying the article so fundamentally but it goes over the line of constructive editing. I'm going to revert those changes now myself. If you have any suggestions how to improve the article, not gut it or vandalize it, then please propose them on the talk page and I'll respond there.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please use the article's talk page. K. the Surveyor (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Talk:Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 03:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an edit summary. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch re consensus.
Cheers. -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of poetry portraying sexual relations between women


The article List of poetry portraying sexual relations between women has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This list does not list what it is about - there is no mention of actual poems about sexual relations between women. It's just a list of poets that might have written about such a topic.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SarahStierch (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2012 (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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!