User talk:Wayfarers43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Wayfarers43, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - FrancisTyers 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same-sex marriage

You're doing some quite disputable changes to the article and don't summarize your edits. Could you please comment on talk page on your recent chages. --tasc 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. The fact that you seem to be blindly working your way through the article making changes without regard to tasc's reversions is worrisome to me. I reverted your latest change. --Syrthiss 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to summarize my edits. There are numerous sentences/paragraphs in the article that slant a pro-same-sex marriage bias, such as "That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships is well-established" without any supporting facts. ("Celebrated" is a subjective term, again with no corrobative information).

In addition, much of this entire entry is slanted against Judeo-Christian tradition, by "burying" opposition to the idea of same-sex marriage views later in the sections or ignoring them altogether. The section on religious arguments , for example, reads "James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, argues that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family as interpreted by "his brand of Christianity" and lead to an increase in homosexual couples [21]. The use of "his brand" is inflammatory and, although not shared by the writer of the article, is shared by many Christian families.

Another example--"a fundamental concern of some people is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack via lawsuits against religions to force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and additionally that established churches could be bankrupted by these types of lawsuits." The use of " some people" is not clear--in addition, organized denominations aare clearly concerned about the limits on free speech that have accompanied the changes to the marriage laws in Canada, in addition to changes in other countries concerning the age of consent. I will be happy to support with related articles and news reports. Wayfarers43 17:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)=Wayfarers43 12:46 6 April 2006 (CST)

Fair enough, and I agree that the "celebrated" etc is not terribly neutral. However I think that neutrality is somewhere between the article as it exists and some of your edits, and you should be prepared for needing to back up your changes with sources on the talk page. I've already started a section on the talk page for the article, with a cut and paste of your explanation above (so nobody else hopefully reverts you as vandalism). My apologies in the meantime for that one revert I did of your edits. --Syrthiss 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Mark Foley scandal. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. NatusRoma | Talk 06:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Last change was actually a revision, not a revert , as required by Wikipedia. Wayfarers43 11:30, 5 October 2006 (CST)

Watch your mouth, Way. I actually _removed_ the Dobson stuff twice, including the first time. Someone else stuck it back in. That _may_ have gotten picked up by me on an edit-conflict revision. But, it wasn't vandalism, and I'll thank you to not scream my name on an edit summary with that accusation. Good day, sir. Derex | Talk 06:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Derex, if you review many of your posts, you use quite a bit of cursing, which I believe, as an editor, is unprofessional. I will agree to not scream if you agree to not do wholesale deletes without cursing about them and not looking into them first. Dobson's deliberate actions NOT to comment publicly is newsworthy, as this is a political activist organization, frequently speaking out against the moral decline of society. I properly footnoted the comment that he had not commented. Dobson and FOF not taking action to comment should be pointed out. If you check their website, still no comment on the Foley or Hastert situation, only benign information about "protecting our sons." Wayfarers 43 11:30, 5 October 2006 (CST)


Response to your talk page comments on Foley.

First, there is no such thing as a moderator. There are admins, but they do housekeeping tasks; they have no special editing status. I choose not to be one because you are not allowed to edit an article you admin, and I'm not interested in housekeeping articles I don't edit. You need to do a bit more reading on the links someone kindly gave you above. For example, WP:POV does not apply to Talk pages. We generally try to have a very open discussion there, which includes expressing your opinion. That actually helps craft a neutral main article, because you know where everyone is coming from.

Second, I don't believe I deleted your FRC section, at least not after an intial objection (I don't recall). I trimmed down a long very long quotation to a shorter one and summarized the rest. The FRC is just one group and doesn't need a long paragraph expressing a simple view. That's called copyediting. Every time you post the following message appears "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." I've lost count of the times someone has deleted paragraphs of my writing here; it goes with the territory. As I trimmed that, I also hunted down and added summarized of the stances of two other conservative groups, including the Christian Coalition.

Oh, and wow, I just realized that you are actually objecting to me deleting a line about FOF _not_ commenting. I believe your edit summary indicated the reverse, which would have been sensible. You _really_ need to read WP:NPOV & WP:OR. You're flat wrong on policy. It's not even a gray area. You can certainly add a line about that to the FOF article, but only if you can cite someone notable who has criticized them for that. This article is about the scandal. If a group does not comment on the scandal, by definition that says nothing about the scandal. It may say something about hypocrisy, but that deals with the group, not the scandal. So, it goes in the group's article, if it's citeably notable.

Now, if you've got an issue with me about my edits of your material, that's fine. Simply re-insert it with a friendly note. I am entirely friendly to those who are friendly back. You screamed at me, and made a false accusation. Does it surprise you that offended me? When you commented on my demeanor, did you direct your comment to me? No, you did it in the third person: "I would appreciate if Derex would ...." Dude, that's the height of condescension and snottiness. You got a problem with me, you say it _to_ me. And if it's not a matter of the content of the article, you direct it to my talk page. I should also have directed my initial reply to your lecture here.

When Msalt left a note, he prefaced it with an accusation that I am a Republican operative (that's rich) and asked others to "keep an eye on me". Was that a friendly note? Does it surprise you that offended me? There were similar issues on the edit summaries. But, how about you run over to Msalt's talk page and see how we worked it out. Then, look at the response he gave me. We worked it out because his _second_ comment to me, after seeing the irritation and realizing it was justified, was friendly. In response, I extensively discussed my rationale with him. We came up with an editing solution which made everyone happy, and are now on very good terms.

I think my commentary has generally been rather sober, rather than "glib" & "sarcastic" with the exceptions of responses to those who have first bitten me. With the exception also of Crockspot, who I have had bad blood with for a very long time, and for very good reasons that deal with his edits to content. Again, that's not really your business; Crockspot can handle himself. So, if you've got a problem with me, how about you focus on your own issues?

As to cursing, I'm not aware that I've been doing much of that. But I'll be mindful of it. This is not a professional encyclopedia; it's a volunteer one. And I've volunteered time enough for over 10,000 edits over more than two years. How about you?

I consider this matter closed, and I will be civil to you on the Talk page. I suspect you will feel the need to reply, but I will not comment further myself. Consider this a very large violation of WP:BITE. Derex 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BITE = "Please do not bite the newcomers". It's fairly clear that Derex was referring to him biting you, not the reverse.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/y/User_talk%7EWayfarers43_3427.html"