ALLST✰R▼echo's Wikipedia talk page Currently, Allstarecho's Wikipedia online status is: - Also add this page to your watchlist for my status updates. Currently, Allstarecho's local time and date is: 2:41 PM on September 15, 2024 - Is my clock slow? Click here to wind it up!
Hello and welcome to my talk page. Please note that I will reply to you on this page unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you comment.
Further, please note:
Please take note of my status and the time where I live. If I'm not online, I'll reply when I am, but feel free to look at my contact page for other methods of contact.
Please use a ==descriptive header== and sign & date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message.
Please use [[wikilinks]] when mentioning users and pages.
I will not reply directly to attacks, innuendo or general incivility. You will be wasting your time if you're here for that. I may however reply via a warning on your own talk page or a report to the Administrators' incident noticeboard. Save your time and mine so that we can both use it to build a better Wikipedia.
Please note that I archive talk posts so if commenting on an old thread from the archives, consider starting a new thread.
Please note that I am a "regular". Do not template me as I will surely revert. For more info, refer to WP:DTTR.
With all that said, ask away and I'll try and help.
ALLST✰R▼echo's talk page archives - click 'show' to view and/or search them ------>
Want to see how a Wikipedia lynching works? Read this.
Steve McNair Links
Thanks for accept my edits my Friend!!! I will search for the videos in other site, Anyway thanks for be patient with me.--Zta (talk) July 5 2009 ♠Nastia
Your writing on the Chico's article continues to be misleading. While the police may have cited the law struck down by Lawrence v. Texas as the basis for a "homosexual conduct" citation, the article should not imply that L v. T actually did strike down a "homosexual conduct" law. L v. T struck down sodomy laws on the basis of privacy. Even if there had been a public homosexual conduct law, L v. T would not have struck it down because the basis of the decision was privacy, not treating gays as a protected class.
That makes this statement wrong because it implies L v. T struck down a "homosexual conduct" law:
"police threatened to cite the two gay men for 'homosexual conduct', a law that had already been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court via Lawrence v. Texas."
"Homosexual conduct" law is the same thing as the sodomy law in which L v. T struck down. Search the Texas criminal code and you won't see any such separate law. Privacy is irrelevant as to why the law was struck down, the law with which they were threatened to be charged with was still struck down. As one who wrote part of the amicus brief for the Supreme Court case, I can assure you this is correct and valid. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The law struck down in Texas was "§ 21.06. Homosexual Conduct." So, yes, the title of the section was "Homosexual Conduct." But it was not a general homosexual conduct law. It was a homosexual sodomy law. Your writing in the article implies that the "homosexual conduct" law extended to the situation the police were handling, which involved kissing.
The writing needs to make the following clear:
(1) The officer cited "homosexual conduct" as the violation.
(2) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law was struck down by L v. T.
(3) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law would never have included gay kissing to begin with because it was a sodomy law.
(4) If Texas did have a law against gay kissing, L v. T would not have struck it down.
(5) It's not clear whether the cop was threatening to cite the men under §21.06 or some non-specific "homosexual conduct" thing he had in mind. So it's not 100% clear that L v. T has any relationship to the supposed ban the officer had in mind.
This is how your writing currently reads:
(1) The officer cited "homosexual conduct" as the violation.
(2) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law was struck down by L v. T.
(3) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law extended to gay kissing in public. (You imply this by saying they kissed and the police threatened a "homosexual conduct" citation without refuting the association.)
(4) L v. T struck down gay kissing bans. (You imply this by saying L v. T overturned what the cop was trying to cite the person for.)
I'm still going to add a clarification that the officer's attempt to cite the men under "homosexual conduct" would not have been valid in any case, given that the law was limited to sodomy, not public affection. I've already seen several people misinterpret current coverage of the Chico situation to mean L v. T struck down a gay kissing law. --davidstrauss (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the L v. T reference back to the article with clarification to reduce confusion resulting from the officer's faulty interpretation of what "homosexual conduct" laws ever meant in Texas. --davidstrauss (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Childofmidnight of accused you of pushing an agenda on this article at the BLP page ChildofMidnight is the most active conservative POV pushing editor on wiki that I've encountered. Scribner (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question is at it again, now with edit summaries intended to bait. I've reverted, but I wanted to give you a heads up. --StephenLaurie (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allstrecho, you do seem to have an unfair agenda on the Matt Sanchez article. Stephen Laurie also is pushing an agenda. Sanchez is listed as a war correspondent by Fox News, that should be more than enough. 217.163.18.130 (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to overhaul the male actors in gay porn list and reconcile it with Category:People appearing in gay pornography. Would you, could you help close an odd technical gap for me? I need the list of all those in the category - 238 on two pages - recollated and listed by first name instead of las name. This also brings up the question if the list is fine being listed by first name or not. I'm not bothered either way. Anyway that's the request. Thank you! -- Banjeboi09:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do anything and they still seem to be sorted by last name. Do you have a word processing ability to alpha sort by first name? I could run it through an accountancy pragramme instead. -- Banjeboi00:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that you're seeing them last name first and I'm seeing them first name first. Go look at User talk:Benjiboi/catsort where I have pasted them. That's how I see them and should be what you need. All of them first name first, last name second. So odd you're seeing something different. Anyway, go look at that page I created for you, you'll have to wikilink them. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I explained it poorly but solved my own challenge. I wanted the list sorted by first name not listed first name first. So Adam, Alan, Alaine would be together instead of the cat list which bundles by last name. Thank you for looking at it though. -- Banjeboi03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you were the one who set up the archive on the Skynyrd page. There are no links to the archive on the talk page, so I'm hoping you could just send me a link to the discussion where consensus was reached on setting up the archive. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
