Hello C0h3n, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 15:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I will continue undoing your edits to the INAH3 article unless you make a proper case for them. I have added more information to the INAH3 talk page, and to the article on LeVay. Skoojal (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
C0h3n, I've reverted your edits to the Simon LeVay article. The material you removed was both relevant and sourced, and your reasons for removing it seem mistaken to me; I left a comment about that on the talk page. Skoojal (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
C0h3n, on the LeVay talk page, you recently wrote this, 'We can thank Jokestress's smear campaign and Skoojal's need to get involved in articles he has no qualifications for but his own anti gay biases for that. If someone wanted to actually read LeVay's article as I have done and read these "criticisms" as well as some of LeVay's own comments on his work and redo this entire section, it would be much appreciated. Skoojal likes to revert all my edits because I am not rabidly anti gay.'
Comments like this are uncivil, and tend to anger people. Please see WP:Civility. Please remember that Wikipedia tries to be neutral, and that pro-gay biases are no more helpful here than anti-gay biases; see WP:NPOV. The fact that I have a different perspective on homosexuality than you do does not give you the right to be insulting or to remove material you dislike from the LeVay article. By the way, I have 'actually read LeVay's article.' Skoojal (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The exact words used by LeVay in that article were, "This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate." My wording is therefore correct. Yours distorts what LeVay wrote. This appears to be another case of biased editing, and I again recommend that you ask other editors for their views before making further changes, if you want to avoid accusations of edit warring. Skoojal (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take note of the following comment by LeVay in that paper, "In particular, the results do not allow one to decide if the size of INAH 3 in an individual is the cause or consequence of that individual's sexual orientation, or if the size of INAH 3 and sexual orientation co-vary under the the influence of some third unidentified variable." This again shows that "suggested" is the right word, not "concluded." Your wording has no basis in what LeVay wrote. Skoojal (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks and off-topic posts
C0h3n, your recent post to the LeVay talk page was an irrelevant, off-topic personal attack on me. I've left a message to other editors requesting them to not respond to it, and in fact to delete it from the talk page. What's appropriate for the INAH3 article should be discussed on its talk page, not the LeVay talk page. Please think twice before behaving in such an uncivil way in future. You were requested to 'post right here on the talk page the exact words that you want to add (or remove), and give me a brief statement of why you think this improves the article', and that was what you should have done. Skoojal (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Still on the subject of personal attacks: you wrote on the LeVay talk page 'What Skoojal labeled a 'personal attack' on him was my attempt to show that in general he is using quotes that make it seem as if the researchers do not think their results have any clear conclusion to be drawn from them when in fact they are being good scientists and admitting some ambiguity and then going on to argue why their results still strongly suggest x or y, which he leaves out. Notice that the entire "Books" section consists of quoting LeVay admitting the existence of such ambiguity.'
Your attempt to show something about my behaviour 'in general' was irrelevant. You were requested to explain and justify the specific changes you wanted to make to the LeVay article. My behaviour 'in general' has nothing to do with this, which is why discussing it was a personal attack. I could make comments about your behaviour 'in general' and I don't think you'd much like that either. If you want to balance the quotes I offer with other quotes, then feel free, but don't censor scientific statements that don't support your point of view.
The distinction you're trying to draw between researchers not thinking their results have any clear conclusion to be drawn from them and scientists admitting ambiguity but still arguing that their results suggest something is spurious; if something is only suggested, that's not a clear conclusion. Regarding LeVay's comment about science not being able to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, there is nothing anywhere else in his work that contradicts this, since that happens to be the only place in his work where he addresses the issue. Skoojal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The Glenn Beck has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. SeaphotoTalk 06:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)you made to