User talk:Lindanacho

Welcome
Hello, Lindanacho, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Conversion therapy
Regarding your recent edit to Conversion therapy. Please note that content added to Wikipedia articles must be verifiable as having already been published by reliable sources.

Your edit appeared to remove sourced content and replace it with what Wikipedia calls "original research" and in a way that doesn't follow the presentation of content from a neutral point of view, which is also required for content. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Whenever you want to cite anything to NARTH, the claim within the article must identify this as NARTH's views. Their views are so outside the mainstream scientific views that they fall under WP:FRINGE and must not be placed in the article in what could be considered "Wikipedia's voice". -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content and edit summaries
Was there a reason why you removed this sourced content? 

Using an edit summary will help other editors understand why you have taken an action. Without an explanation, removal of sourced content appears to be vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed that description of Joseph Nicolosi's theories because it was grossly inaccurate, and clearly written not by a neutral source, but an ideological opponent of his.
 * Thank you for the explanation. Please use edit summaries to provide your rationale as you make edits.
 * Also as I have mentioned before, when you are using NARTH as a source, you MUST identify that the claim, observation etc. comes from them within the article text ("According to the NARTH website ...", "NARTH states that ..."), and not present it as "Wikipedia's voice". --  The Red Pen of Doom  16:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_43 and Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_14 (i particularly find "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus", but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. When NARTH becomes Semmelweis instead of Bozo, we'll cover it appropriately " as instructive). -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The material you have removed is quoted from a peer-reviewed journal, which makes it a high-quality reliable source. See WP:BRD and WP:EW (in particular, WP:3RR), and discuss on the article Talk page. AV3000 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.