User talk:Teammm/Archive 1

Maryland vote tallies
Any idea how the House screwed up its vote tally? I can see how it would happen in places where they count by hand (the UK for instance), but as I understand it they use an electronic system. -Rrius (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

They use handheld electronic devices that have a green (yea) and red button (nay) to record their votes. Sometimes, the devices glitch and the vote doesn't register on the big board. I guess that's what happened here. Usually, before the final tally is recorded, someone will hurry to speak up, saying their vote wasn't recorded. But, I guess it took a little longer and some news reporters published their stories before there was a chance to correct the mistake. But, the vote is 72-67. Two Republicans voted for it. - Teammm Let's Talk! :) 02:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The big board"—that always makes me think of Dr. Strangelove: "Sir, you can't let him in here. He'll see everything. He'll see the big board!"-Rrius (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting movie. I find myself having to listen more than once to get the jokes though haha. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Using reliable sources in citations
I appreciate your contributions to Recognition of same-sex unions in Maryland and others. The information you add seems to be correct. However, it is also necessary that readers be able to verify them from non-partisan sources they trust and publishers that hire fact-checkers. Instead of Huff Post or gay-marriage-is-wonderful.com, why not just use the source they used? Your contributions will be more likely to be accepted and will allow readers and editors to trust what they read in Wikipedia. Thank you again for your edits. --Javaweb (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * I don't believe I used anything called "gay-marriage-is-wonderful.com". Huffington Post is not a reliable source? I'm sure it is a reliable source. If you're referring to my using "gay.americablog.com" or a news reporter's twitter page, then I see where you may have a concern. AMERICAblog is a credible source in my opinion when I cannot find another more known source. But, I make sure the information is confirmed before I submit it. Thanks though for finding something better. That's why we have multiple editors and not just one.
 * -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of WP, there are problems with Americablog as a source just as there are with some right-wing source like newsmax.com. If what Americablog is saying is accurate then there will be a reliable source that most will not see as having a bias. For example, your MD paper, Baltimore Sun. Although it supports marriage equality on its opinion pages, it has reporters that report the news in MD in the rest of the paper that people will believe. Very often, this is the origin of the opinion piece in AMERICAblog. Why not cite the Baltimore Sun secondary source rather than that tertiary source site that folks that aren't sure about civil marriage will dismiss as propaganda.
 * --Javaweb (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb


 * You're right. But, in the context of only citing that there were two more lobbyists on that day, I didn't view it as a questionable or controversial site to point out that fact. If I would have seen that there was an article in a newspaper, I would have used it. But, I didn't. I'm glad you did and replaced my citation. I will remember your words for future reference. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there is only so much work an edit is worth and if it is too much effort on something that is not contested then it isn't a big deal. BTW, I used your talk page as a model to archive my old talk topics. That was very helpful. --Javaweb (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb


 * Cool! I'll probably use your pages too if you don't mind. That's why I have you listed as an interesting person on my user page lol...I hope you don't mind! I just like all the stuff you have/know. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 23:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks on you
This is to let you know User talk:Winntitle has been making personal attacks against you here and here. I didn't notice the text of the offensive userbox until after I'd left a generic warning at his page. -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I . --Javaweb (talk)Javaweb
 * Definitely appreciate it. That guy had no respect. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 23:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref fixes on Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Thanks for fixing the errant refs in the Tchaikovsky article! Nice to know someone's got my back. Jonyungk (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad I was useful. That article is really good and so well written; I downloaded it and will read it tonight.
 * I love history, especially when I can personally identify with it. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 18:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Delaware Civil Marriage
Gov. says it is inevitable and says he supports it. Would you like to add this to LGBT_rights_in_Delaware? --Javaweb (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Jeffrey Satinover
Thank you for your common-sense edits to the page on Jeffrey Satinover. --Miamibeachguy (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome buddy! Keep contributing. You're doing awesome! – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Tyler Clementi article
Because of the verdict, the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article is going to have a lot of editing. Could you monitor the page and consider editing if you see ways of improving it? --Javaweb (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Yes, no problem. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 23:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Javaweb (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Same-sex marriage in Maryland ‎
I saw that you removed the description of the Maryland Marriage Alliance. I'd prefer to have something indicating which side the various groups are on in the external links, especially since many groups on the issue have names which are not entirely clear. However looking over the various other pages on Same Sex Marriage in X like Washington State, Connecticut and New York, Maryland is the only one where groups on one side or the other are actually included in the external links. Using that setup, I think only the two (the one from the State Government and the ballotpedia) and the last one (from the Baltimore Sun) would stay. (Note in terms of COI, the *only* reason that I'm not going to be outside the polling place arguing *against* repeal of Marriage Equality in Maryland, is that I'm a voting judge)Naraht (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's because most other pages in the same-sex marriage category have not been as well-developed as the Maryland article. We've done more than they have. There is discretion given to the links in the External Links section; the links are not excessive and all meet criteria for being very closely related to the subject in Maryland. Maryland's external links have no influence on the type of links that are on other articles. None of the links to organizations have a description and that's the only reason I removed it...because it did not look right and was inconsistent. I'll be mobilized as well on that day to uphold equal civil rights and privileges for my family and their children who depend on their parent's ability to take care of them in the best environment. Children love their parents no matter who they are. To be fair, I can add "Petition" to the title of Maryland Marriage Alliance. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, if you are arguing against repeal of the law, I really do appreciate what you are doing, you really don't realize how much it means to people like me. We need the majority to help us, we can't improve our lives if we don't have help from people like you. So, thank you. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 17:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree there is discretion and I can't find anything in WP:EL that indicates that the links should be dropped, but I think somewhat more organization should be done there. Since this has a *significant* political aspect, I picked a 2012 Senate election that should be competitive United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 and I like that as a concept. The 3 "Neutral" links listed above first and then some title above those that aren't? (now leaving NPOV :) )As for the other, Like you, I am definitely opposed to the appeal of the law. I'm in the 19th District, which means that I have Sam Arora as one of my Delegate. Guess who I am working *against* in 2014.Naraht (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreement
Glad to see that we finally agree on edits involving controversial court cases :) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=484065583&oldid=484065254 :LedRush (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yay! – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ProtectMarriage.com article
This relates to proposition 8. They are the instigators of Prop 8 and a party in "Perry v Brown". You may want to check out ProtectMarriage.com since you are interested in the topic. --Javaweb (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb


 * Thank you, I'll see if I have anything to add. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 12:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Recognition of same-sex marriage in North Carolina page
Thanks for your constructive edits and contributions to the "Recognition of same-sex unions in North Carolina" page. I did a major revision for a class project and it's my first Wikipedia page ever. I think others criticisms have been borderline rude and not very constructive. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkmpa (talk • contribs) 13:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! For a first time edit, it was really well done, cited and complete. If someone was rude, don't pay them any mind. You did a great job. Remember to Sign your comments so the bots don't have to come. Have fun editing Wikipedia! – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 15:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello!!!! Kpopisgodly (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous Ishhq
My edit was completely accurate and supported with a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.26.199 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The review says: "Beautiful wordings accompanied with a tune which people would surely enjoy listening to. It’s the best song in the album." Please don't add false information. Thank you so much. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 23:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not true. The review gives the album 6 stars out of 10, not 9. Also, the review says the music is not exceptional, except for one song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.236.10 (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. I apologize. I went through it rather quickly and misread it. Thank you for correcting it. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 14:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.236.10 (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No prob. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States
Hello Teamm, I was wondering if you could give a reason for undoing my edit on this page. The issue of Natural Law is used to argue against same sex marriage, and my source was from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The source is solid to the best of my knowledge. If you know otherwise please correct me. If this is a solid source, I would like to see "Natural Law" restored as a reason listed for opposing same sex marriage. Thanks! Toverton28 (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Toverton28. The source you provided is a solid one, but natural law theory arguments are included in the reasons already stated in the article (ie. parenting concerns, religious concerns, etc). The way I understand the subject is that the typical "procreation as purpose of marriage, same-sex couples lack ability of different-sex couples to produce offspring by natural means, same-sex unions can't be recognized within the definition of marriage, etc." arguments are representative of the natural law theory you mentioned. So, it isn't necessary to actually use the term as it is already explained. I would, however, support the addition of the source to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page as a reference next to the phrases "parenting concerns," and "religious concerns,", if that is sufficient. You are free to add additional details on natural law theory to the main article Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States if you wish, but as the summary on Same-sex marriage in the United States is brief and already explained, it wouldn't be necessary. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 04:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I added your reference here. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 04:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Teamm, I appreciate the addition of the ref. How would you feel about a sentence being added that uses the words "Natural Law"?  My reason for this is the following sentence from the Stanford Encyclopedia: "Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention."  I believe the "most common intellectual defense" for heterosexual marriage needs to be specifically mentioned.  As you know, "Natural Law" is that defense.  Thank you for considering this.  Toverton28 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. You can definitely do your own edits, I don't want to stifle your contributions. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 23:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

EQual Rights
I don't know who you are, just random person, but I see that you support equal gay rights and that's enough for me to say thanks, it's always good to see people going public about how there should be equal rights for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburgs (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your comment. I appreciate it! There's a vote going on today in North Carolina to constitutionally ban legal recognitions and rights for gay couples, so keep your thoughts positive. You started my day off great. Have a good one! ...Oh, and I'm gonna leave you a nice Welcome Message so you can get familiar with how to edit a page, cite sources and sign your name after your comments on people's pages. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ronaldo edit
I was recently told you reverted an edit I made on the Ronaldo page. I had changed the active years for the national team in his profile box to '1994-2011' from '1994-2009,' as was previously incorrectly shown on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.254.32 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were correct, as I've confirmed it. I undid my revert. I apologize for the mistake. Have a great day! – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 20:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Map update
Yes, the maps usually take a while to update because the svgs are converted into pngs of the right size and somehow only slowly trickle down into the Wiki. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhh ok. Thanks for that. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 16:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Try to keep your edit summaries more temperate. These two in Perry v. Brown - "unnecessary and false; the court ruled)" and "Well, if you're going to add in a potentially biased looking addition (as if Reinhardt could have flippantly denied his own disqualification), then the memorandum explaining denial of the motion should be included. Thx" - were both inappropriate. The first is simply incorrect. It wasn't "false" that Reinhardt ruled. The second was inappropriate because it accused others of bias without any real support, other than you don't like it, and your statement about Reinhardt didn't make any sense. Assuming you meant to say that no judge would grant a motion to disqualify himself, that is also wrong.

Anyway, I understand that sometimes edit summaries get a little loose, but please read WP:REVTALK, in particular, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback regarding edit summaries. Though, your assumption was incorrect. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 19:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting word
Whats good teammm. What an interesting salutation. "whats good" was invented during that time period in the 1900s and instantly became popular. I think Im going to use that from now on. Well i thought I should let someone know, so TaTa By the way i signed my comment this time ;) Jburgs. Out. (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did you get this history lesson? LOL. Are you playing tricks on me? Nice editing btw. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome :-)
I just wanted to say thank you for the warm welcome to the Wikipedia Community. Knowing I could edit without registering was nice, but I wanted to be part of it all. It's truly a repository of human knowledge.

Even though I am only a sophomore in High school I have a wide range of knowledge of history (Especially WWI). I actually plan on pursuing a career in Archeology.

Thanks again for the welcome :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicoyoda (talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, how did you set up your user page as you have? I'm a bit confused in that aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicoyoda (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Nice goals you have for yourself. You have the potential to great things!


 * As for the design, I used a template that someone else had made up. It was confusing at first, but what I did was just substituted in my own information and the userboxes I wanted. You can go here, click Edit, copy and paste the template I have into your own user page, and input your own information, username, etc. in the appropriate areas, deleting whatever you want. You can continuously press the Show Preview button to see how it will look before saving the changes OR to be safer, you can click My sandbox and do all of it there before putting it on your user page. I hope that wasn't too much lol. Your free to ask me for help if you get stuck anywhere. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 01:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, don't forget to sign your comments with the four tildes. Happy editing! – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 01:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :D. It'll be a great experience sharing and gaining knowledge :) Calicoyoda 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicoyoda (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cool! I appreciate that so much. Thank you!! – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
It is incredibly! Thank you for all the amazing contrubitions you have added, they are very helpful! Also, thank you for welcoming so many of Wikipedias new users and keeping for keeping wikipedia vandal free using STiki.

Cheers, Riley Huntley (talk) No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow! Thank you! It means a good deal. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 05:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronoun
Don't revert good faith edits and not tell the user where they went wrong. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 00:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for coming by Tombomp. I did explain why I reverted it in the edit summary but I guess I forgot to place a template for adding unsourced information on the user's talk page, since I was using Stiki. It would have been appropriate for you, since you discovered my mistake, to have notified the user on my behalf in order to make the situation right. That would've been nice. But, I will do it now that you have come here instead, to bring it to my attention. Good day. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 02:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, from STiki !

 * Cool. Thank you!! – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 10:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposition 8 timeline
Interesting times. Looks like there finally is a timeline for the end of this story. In October, the Supreme Court says if wants to take the case. If they don't, Prop. 8 falls. If they take the case, the decision is announced around June 2013. Also, DOMA has been overturned in the First Circuit Court. Will the Supreme Court take that case? Just chatting... --Javaweb (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb


 * Very interesting times. I'm just glad it's all happening at an age where I can be a part of it. I've learned a lot in just the past 3 years about all these different organizations and people in support. I wish I could have grown up knowing all this and having that sense of belonging and esteem. But, now that Proposition 8 was denied rehearing, and multiple appellate courts ruled DOMA unconstitutional, it's a matter of which one of those will reach the Supreme Court first. Oh..and just today, another federal court has ruled DOMA unconstitutional in New York. I just got the news (long day at work! lol)...
 * Given that DOMA applies to the whole country and Prop 8 to California, it's likely DOMA will be heard first (I'm sure those requests for certiori are already in the works). I would prefer DOMA to be heard first because it'll give a better sense of how the court views this issue. I believe DOMA will be overturned by the Supreme Court but it's not clear on what grounds they will decide the unconstitutionality (can be broad or narrow). They can hear DOMA and rule sexual orientation a protected class, and not hear Prop 8.. or they can just rule that the fed gov't must recognize all states' marriages.. or they can rule that the fed gov't must recognize them AND states must recognize all other states' marriages. It's up to them. If they deny Prop 8, which is a win either way for marriage in California, the court will have to consider those issues in DOMA which it will definitely hear without a doubt. It would be good to see both be ruled on though, because the record in Prop 8 is so well laid out with regard to sexual orientation, the history of marriage, the stigma, stereotypes, fear-mongering, the history of discrimination and animus towards gays (although the 9th Circuit ruled on narrow grounds). I would like to see Theodore Olson convince a conservative Justice to agree with him on this issue. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 03:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Couple of Questions
Hi there, I noticed you were quite active on the page Timeline of same-sex marriage and just thought you would be a good person to ask regarding a couple of points, 1) Do you think you could help me create a page about the upcoming marriage referendum in Maryland, there is already a page for the Washington referendum and a page for the Maine referendum and they are happening at the same time so it would be good if the Maryland had a page as well. 2) Do you think we should add events happening in the near future onto the Timeline of same-sex marriage page, I was thinking of mentioning these November ballots but wasn't sure, what do you think, if the dates and referendum details are officially confirmed then there seems no reason not to do it. What do you think, Guyb123321 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. 1) I could help you with creating the page but the referendum in Maryland isn't on the ballot yet. Right now, signatures have been submitted (well over the amount required) but they still have to be validated. The signatures have to be valid, the ballot measure text needs to be written by the state's attorney, and the text must be agreed on by both sides. 2) I wouldn't add things that are going to happen in the future out of.. consistency, for lack of a better word. Well, actually the main reason I wouldn't do it is because someone will most definitely revert it and say wait; there's no point in arguing over that. 3) So, let me know what you want to do from here (if you want to wait or do it now or whatever). – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I say we should do it now as the Washington referendum page was created in February and the Maine referendum page was also created in February so Maryland is about 3-4 months behind Guyb123321 (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maryland same-sex marriage referendum, 2012 has been created and ready to be edited. It appears that enough signatures have already been validated as of yesterday, so it will be on the ballot in November. I don't know too much about the end of the petition process. All I know is that June 30th was the deadline, so I guess the total valid signatures won't be known until then. After that, they will get the ballot language together I suppose. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks Teammm, page looks great, now we have a full pack so to speak on the referendums in November, apart from Minnesota, but that one is less important, thanks once again, Guyb123321 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Guy, thanks for the suggestion. Add more detail if you can. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 16:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Federalist Society POV tag
On the page Federalist Society, I had added a POV tag, and you seem to have arbitrarily removed it without adding anything to my discussion about it. May I ask why? Antman -- chat 03:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you may. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 03:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, why? Antman -- chat 04:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the tag was frivolous. It doesn't seem the way you described. How would you like the article to sound? – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But on second thought, it does seem a little giddy in its phrasing. You can place the tag back, I won't dispute it. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 04:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'giddyness' was more what I was referencing. The article has a subtle yet noticeable undertone which feels POV-y to me. I will place the tag back soon... I will see if I can extract anything in particular as a reference first. I believe it may just be due to the writing style of the article (which would still need to be changed) and not anything in particular, though. Antman -- chat 04:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 04:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re revision 499512145 - Dead link, official document no longer found on APA's website
Hello

Re revision 499512145, guys, are we looking at the same link?

There are two links for the relevant reference, as below:


 * 1) http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx - This supposedly points to the original document, but the link is dead. This was already pointed out on 29 May 2012, 05:49 (UTC) by user Hebradaeum)
 * 2) http://web.archive.org/web/20100929155736/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx - Archived version, pointing to Internet Archive's waybackmachine.


 * Here is what that list link says (read below pls). As you can see it does not support the claim. Indeed, though, there is another DEAD link on text "Background to the POSITION STATEMENT", pointing to another page which indeed DOES support the claim. However, I believe the article should supposedly reflect a current, official opinion, and thus should be substantiated with current, official statements, otherwise removed or clearly point out it is an opinion which no longer seems to be officially supported.


 * 200001a
 * Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)
 * SUPPLEMENT
 * Background to the POSITION STATEMENT
 * Recommendations:
 * 1.    APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder.  Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians.  APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.
 * 1.    APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder.  Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians.  APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.158.128.165 (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is found here in paragraph one under "Position Statement". I will fix the reference in the article. Thank you. – Teammm  (talk · email) Face-smile.svg 17:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Signature
Hi Teammm. Just a quick note to point out that your use of a smiley face image in your signature goes against WP:SIG, would you mind removing it? Cheers  Worm TT( talk ) 09:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Sure. – Teammm  (talk · email) 14:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, have a great day  Worm TT( talk ) 14:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You too. – Teammm  (talk · email) 14:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Awww, now you made my day. ;) – Teammm  (talk · email) 16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! Anytime. – ♔ Teammm  ♔  (talk · email) 15:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a shame about your signature by the way, i liked the old one =P  J e n o v a  20 15:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, me too lol. I'm still experimenting on creating a new one. – Teammm ♥  (talk · email) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So i see. Got any samples?  J e n o v a  20 18:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep I have some. – Teammm ♥  (talk · email) 20:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 5th one is very very good =D I like that one  J e n o v a  20 20:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I had to make it shorter by deleting orange but it's still nice. Thanks! – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 21:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks brilliant =D a shame you couldn't keep your emoticon but i personally like this signature more  J e n o v a  20 21:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ilovepinkyrings
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Quiz Show. This is much appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's [ page history] to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Actually you missed Pinky's edits, and only gave the warning on Pinky's talk page. --S. Rich (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. I already know how to deal with vandalism. I did see both of his or her edits but simply didn't see it as vandalism and left it to the other editors watching that page to correct it if it was wrong. Although the edits had a source, it wasn't a reliable one. But thank you for coming by and giving me a template. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 05:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I was sure you knew about vandalizm, and that the non-revert was just an oversight. I found pinkyring's edit because of obvious v on San Bernardino, California. Happy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy 4th sweetie! – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 16:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)