User talk:Born Gay

Welcome...

Hello, Born Gay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 七星 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rewording at Conversion therapy

Hi there!

You may have noticed that I reverted one of your edits on said article--the one where you changed "above referenced therapy" to "pathologizing therapy". As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we try to maintain a neutral viewpoint in articles. I felt that the word "pathologizing" was too opinionated. "Above referenced" shows no bias or opinion on the matter.

I noticed your other two edits were very good, though, expanding the information on legal incidents.

Good luck!

WordyGirl90 (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone says that homosexuality is a disorder, that is pathologizing. There's no question of that; the wording you reverted was neutral. Born Gay (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I get what you mean on that point. However, I still think that there isn't exactly a need to write it as pathologizing. The fact that conversion therapy views homosexuality as a disorder is probably already explained well enough in the article (I haven't really read it), and the neutral phrase "above mentioned" will suffice.

I won't make any more reversions to the article. I do have to say that since it is a Good Article, someone might disagree with your contribution and undo it. If so, you can discuss it with them, or other other experienced Wikipedians.

Good luck!

WordyGirl90 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you archive talk page discussions from today on the article? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussions. I think it is self-explanatory. Discussion there had reached an end-point, and none of the conversations were worth continuing. Born Gay (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but archiving them like that often causes more controversy rather than calming it. Especially if the archiver is one of the parties in the argument. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The controversy, such as it was, was effectively over when I archived. The editor who was involved in the dispute with me said that she had given up. I pointed out to her that placing a request for comment would be the appropriate thing to do if she wanted to make a potentially controversial change to the article, but she made fairly clearly she wasn't interested. Born Gay (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the LGBT WikiProject!

Hi, Born Gay, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice or clarification. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you're going to stay awhile, please create a square in our project quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

James Dobson BLP

Hi,

Seeing your comments on Talk:Ex-gay, I'm wondering if you'd be interestied in a project I've been trying to drum up interest in for a while: Getting the BLP of James Dobson up to GA/FA status. Right now, it really lacks a good coherence in criticisms of Dobson. I've approached a number of other Wikipedians interested in such topics to edit a good series of criticisms, but all have consistently declined as uninterested or finding the topic too emotionally difficult for them. Would you be interested? Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I know very little about James Dobson, and I doubt that I can be very much help here. Sorry. But I will look the article over, and make a couple of comments. Born Gay (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:LBGT

I responded on the talk page to you here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love

Hi Born Gay! There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that trolling "message" which is from this user that !voted to delete the related article. If you need, you can view it in the edit history but it's nonconstructive and quite uncivil. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it, you did the right thing. Born Gay (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately someone else he trolled actually restored it so feel free to go there and comment. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Nuclear Terrorism

Hi - I noticed you edited the Nuclear Terrorism article; would you be willing to weigh in on this discussion? This is the second attempt at an RfC on these issues (the first was here). Thanks, csloat (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at that discussion, but I am definitely not an expert on this subject; that's why my edits didn't go beyond formatting. Born Gay (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. While the article could certainly use the attention of experts on the topic, the question under the RfC is really more about understanding Wikipedia's policy of synthesis of original research. csloat (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and use the talk page

This is a direct quote from you:

“ note that WP:WAR states, "Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking." I had objected strongly when you made that change to the lead, and reverted you, so what you did was edit warring, not being bold. ”

Hyper3 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

Get the whiff of meatpuppetry in the air? Mish (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Born Gay (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be too specific, but I get the feeling that at least two of the articles we are both working on seem to have had a sudden influx of editors all trying to soap-box the same POV. Mish (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I think I see what you mean now. It could be pure coincidence. It's possible, too, that my user name attracts a certain kind of negative attention. I get the feeling I am being subtly baited. Born Gay (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on ex-gay section of conversion therapy, and related matters

The Ex-gay ministry section is misleading. I'm not saying that it is wrong, but the facts you chose to focus on is misleading. The APA says that it is helpful to mitigate minority stress, and that support groups have helped clients change sexual orientation identity. I really don't understand how you can claim that counselors having sex with their clients is on-topic, but the APA report is off-topic. You also misrepresent Haldeman's views. He wrote "For some, religious identity is so important that it is more realistic to consider changing sexual orientation than abandoning one's religion of origin...if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged." Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The facts are what is stated in a reliable source. It's our job as editors to present that. If there is stuff in reliable sources that deals with ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy that presents them in a more favourable way, then let us present that too. The APA doesn't discuss ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy, and I am not persuaded that there is a reason to include their verdict on them at all, though issues like that require further discussion; I respect the need to develop consensus. Counselors having sex with their clients is part of the story, and there are no grounds for censoring it, no matter how embarrassing. Born Gay (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wherever Haldeman wrote that, I don't think it was in Gonsiorek and Weinrich, which is the source I'm starting with. Born Gay (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are depending too much on one source. The changes you are making are not going to be acceptable. A section on ex-gay groups in the page on conversion therapy should clearly state how ex-gay groups relate to conversion therapy. You start off by saying that some people consider ex-gay groups to be a conversion therapy, and some do not. Then you continue talking about ex-gay groups in general. This misleads the reader into thinking that you are summarizing information on ex-gay groups, when in reality you are only expressing the point of view of writers who consider ex-gay groups to be a type of conversion therapy, and are ignoring sources that do not explicitly state whether or not they view ex-gay groups to be conversion therapy or not. I personally think all sources should be considered in order to get a better view of the nature of ex-gay groups, but at the very minimum it should be clear to the reader that the section does not include all views on ex-gay groups. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Haldeman happens to be the best source. He is probably responsible for introducing the term "conversion therapy" into the literature after all, and later work rests on his earlier work. If you know of other appropriate sources to use, then by all means say what they are. The section on ex-gay groups does clearly say how they relate to conversion therapy. I consider my use of sources there to be appropriate, and really the only way that section could be written. What writers who don't say that they consider ex-gay groups to be conversion therapy say about them is not really relevant. BG 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're still trying to argue that Jones/Yarhouse should be mentioned, then please present new arguments in support of that view - otherwise, this discussion is just going over the same ground again. Their book definitely does not warrant a mention in the article in my view. BG 01:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As an additional comment: remember that the argument you are trying to make about ex-gay groups would apply to all methods of conversion therapy. Would each and every section on such methods have to explain that it only covers the views of writers who regard them as forms of conversion therapy, and if not, why not? BG 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"I consider my use of sources there to be appropriate, and really the only way that section could be written." I suggest you try to consider other people's point of view. My argument is that the APA should be included. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am considering other people's points of view. I'd appreciate it if you would also consider my point of view. If you have an argument that the APA should be included, then please explain what it is. BG 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Both the APA report and Haldeman are discussing the same entity - ex-gay groups - but they use different words to describe it. The paragraph is trying to represent a concept, even if people have different words to describe the same concept. Including the APA report will give the reader a fuller understanding of what ex-gay groups do. If you are going to describe a concept, all reliable sources about that topic should be considered. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The "different words" the APA uses to describe ex-gay ministries strongly suggest to me that their descriptions of it don't belong in conversion therapy. It's an article about conversion therapy, after all, not SOCE. I am open to discussion on this, but personally I would be strongly inclined to keep it out. Ex-gay groups are only relevant to conversion therapy to the extent that some sources define them as being such. BG 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Having sex with your clients isn't a form of conversion therapy either. The APA description is more relevant to that section than having sex with your clients. Either ex-gay groups are a type of conversion therapy or they are not. If we decide they are, then all source should be included. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you (or I) think is conversion therapy or not, or what you (or I) think is relevant to conversion therapy or not. Haldeman discusses the sex scandals because he sees them as relevant to conversion therapy, specifically the ex-gay ministries. Therefore, they should be included. If anything, I think the information on that should be expanded. You say, "Either ex-gay groups are a type of conversion therapy or they are not. If we decide they are, then all source should be included." Nope. I disagree, and I've explained why - it doesn't matter what "we" think; it matters what reliable sources think. It's up to you to present reasons for your views, rather than simply assert them. BG 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're still trying to argue that Jones/Yarhouse should be in, then please forget it. Their study wasn't about conversion therapy, and it doesn't have any special relevance to conversion therapy, so in the conversion therapy article it's WP:UNDUE, even if it can be presented in a way that isn't grossly misleading. BG 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

biblical

In case you miss my reversion, WP:MOSCAPS is explicit on this: "The adjective biblical should not be capitalized. ". Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It wasn't consistent the way it was; I just thought it should be consistent, that's all. BG 19:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

Hello, my name is the Wordsmith, and I've volunteered to mediate your dispute. If you consent to mediation, please sign with ~~~~ in the "Mediator Notes" section. Thanks, The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 13:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

Ok, I am probably closer to your thoughts in any case. I just think that the minority position should be there *somewhere*, but I have grave doubts about including anything positive about conversion therapy because of my serious POV issues with it.

I don't intend to do anything other than speak up due to my past experiences in this area. I'd rather let others work on the article itself since it is so contentious and upsetting for me.--Boweneer (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider. We're deadlocked at the moment, and the involvement of editors who haven't previously taken an interest in the article would be extremely welcome. Please take as active a role as you can. BG talk 06:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sexual orientation change efforts

The article Sexual orientation change efforts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is the same as conversion therapy. Little, if any, meaningful difference. Thanks, tommy talk 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. tommy talk 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is really not the right option. It was a perfectly good redirect before being turned into an article, so if it doesn't work as an article, it needs to be returned to being a redirect. BG talk 22:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove comments from my talk page after you've placed them here. It's confusing. BG talk 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I already contested the PROD and explained the mediation to Tommy. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Conversion therapy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Hyper3 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior is absurd. Instead of discussing things on the converison therapy talk page, you jump immediately to arbitration. I hope for the sake of your dignity that you can behave in a more intelligent and less juvenile way before ArbCom. BG talk 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for continued sweet words, and willingness to co-operate. Hyper3 (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I "cooperated" very nicely by admitting right away that I was a sockpuppet when you accused me, so spare me the sarcasm. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 08:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but this comment was before you went quietly. Hyper3 (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So would you now say I was being cooperative? A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 21:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would go that far. You are playing the game, and I'm enjoying the spectacle. Though Conversion therapy is a bit boring without you. Hyper3 (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What I have been doing here recently I don't see as being a "game" exactly. Rather, I see it as determining whether Wikipedia is capable of fixing its own mistakes - in this case, a clearly unjustified block of an IP address. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 22:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Existentialist Man isn't complaining... A user who thinks Born Gay is having a great time misleading us all, and doesn't really intend to stop... Hyper3 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The block of Existentialist Man was rather obviously justified, based on behaviour. The block of 208.105.149.80 was not justified - and I note that the IP is still blocked and that no one seems to care whether the block was fair or not. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hyper3 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have accused me correctly. I am in fact Skoojal. I don't believe that I was born gay, by the way - my username is a lie. BG talk 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you used any other aliases? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm telling you? BG talk 20:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A statement

Administrator Will Beback on 19 October, 2009 blocked IP address 208.105.149.80 for six months. While I am not entirely sure, it appears that he did this on the understanding that that IP address was being used by me to evade my block; the fact that he blocked it within moments of blocking Celest7 (which was indeed one of my sockpuppets) and deleting "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sloojal" (which I created with the aforementioned sockpuppet, as a joke), suggests as much. I wish to publically record that I have never used the IP address 208.105.149.80, either to evade my block or for any other purpose. While I understand that such a statement may appear to have little credibility, coming as it does from me, there are several facts that should convince an impartial observer that Will Beback's block of 208.105.149.80 was likely a mistake.

First, there is the geographic location of the IP address. 208.105.149.80 is based in New York State, in the United States of America. I am not an American, and do not live in the United States. While I see no need to state precisely where I live, I can confirm that I am in the Asia-Pacific region, a very, very long way away from the USA, which, I submit, makes it unlikely that 208.105.149.80 would be an IP address that I would use. The checkuser J.delanoy is well aware of my geographic location (as one can see here, where he refers to APNIC data; APINC is the Regional Internet Registry for the Asia Pacific region, and J.delanoy would have had no reason to mention it had I been located anywhere else but the Asia-Pacific region).

I suggest that anyone interested in this matter ask J.delanoy about it. Other checkusers can confirm that I am telling the truth about this, if they wish.

Second, 208.105.149.80, despite its recent block, is still marked as a "suspected sockpuppet" of Skoojal. How, I ask, can it be appropriate to block the IP if it is only a suspected sockpuppet, not a confirmed sockpuppet?

Third, the IP address 74.70.44.210, which was also tagged as a possible sock of Skoojal (back on January 3, 2009), has not been blocked, even though 74.70.44.210 and 208.105.149.80 have been confirmed as being operated by the same person (see here). Both IP addresses have been confirmed as being used by the same person who operates the account BoulderCreek12; however, that editor has also not been blocked. This obviously does not make sense; since they are all used by the same person, either both IP adddresses and the BoulderCreek12 account should have been blocked, or none of them should have been. Please see the relevant discussion in this archive of Cailil's talk page [1].

I am not making this statement in order to attack Will Beback, J.delanoy, or anyone else. I am sure that Will thought he was doing the right thing in making that block, but it appears to have been a mistake. For my part, I know that I am doing the right thing by clarifying matters. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 08:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

BG - I think you are indeed based in the US, you have the attitude and approach of a lawyer. Based at a big University... Yale? Princeton? This is all part of the fun you are having. I think you are having a great time, pushing the limits of technology; probably part of your studies in some way. Strangely, I miss you, and am quite glad to get your emails - keep them coming! Hyper3 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3: You can think what you wish, but the fact is that I don't live in the USA, or anywhere near it. I live in the Asia-Pacific region, and, as indicated, J.delanoy knows that (and so would anyone else who looked carefully at the sockpuppet investigation I linked to). If I were going to evade my block, I would hardly be flying back and forth from the Asia-Pacific region to New York state in the USA to do it! A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 21:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Using a proxy then? Hyper3 (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm nowhere near that technically proficient. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of my ability to send e-mails

I respectfully submit that Will Beback should not have been the administrator to remove my ability to send emails, even if such a move was considered necessary for whatever reason. The fact is that I have been using them to criticise his block of 208.105.149.80, which, for the reasons indicated, is clearly inappropriate and unjustified. I note Will Beback's failure to say anything in defense of that block. Why not simply admit to making a mistake, Will? A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please tell us the IPs you're using so we can block them? That will limit collateral damage. Better yet, just stop editing here and the problem will be solved.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You can easily find out the IP range I am editing from through a checkuser. Ask J.delanoy or whoever. And while you're at it, ask him about my geographic location (which is information you should know, for obvious reasons). It's certainly not in New York state, in the USA, like that IP address you mistakenly blocked. A guy who doesn't really believe that he was born gay talk 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)