User talk:Skydeepblue

Welcome!

Hello Skydeepblue, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Uncia (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Albuquerque racial mix

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Article. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please discuss proposed changes to the race statistics at Talk:Albuquerque, New Mexico#Albuquerque racial mix before changing again. Thank you. --Uncia (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JMS Old Al (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skydeepblue. You have new messages at Talk:Prostitution in China.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reversion of edits without comment

Please see my comments in Talk:Rape#Motivation, reproduced here:

This edit reverted, without edit summary, my previous edits to the motivation section, in which I rewrote the summary of the various proposed motivations. Note that the only cited motivations are those of Paglia, yet the reversion inexplicably assigns greater weight to the uncited, unsourced motivations. I ask that this reversion be explained, and supported by reliable sources. Blackworm (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rape article

I usually appreciate your work on this article and other articles related to it, but I had to revert you on that mass reordering. As I basically stated in my edit summary, the History section should always be first or somewhat close to first (as close to first as it can be without being too far down); your change put it very far down the article. And the most important stuff should come first. For example, the Sociobiological perspectives section should definitely not be as high as you put it. Also, I am not saying that the effects of rape are not as important as how rape is defined, but I am saying that how it is defined should be introduced first (though I know you left the Definitions section first), then the information on laws by jurisdiction since we are already on the topic of how the law defines rape and consent before we move on after that, then information on the history of rape, and then the other important information.

I am open to discussing all this with you, though. I suggest that you discuss things more on the talk pages of well-watched articles before making such drastic changes. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at your changes to the order, I feel that you are correct to have put the Types and Motivation sections as high as you did; thus, I put those back up high (right after the Definitions section and before the Consent section). Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Prostitution article

Hey can you reply to the discussion on the Forced Prostitution article on the Voluntary vs involuntary section to discuss if you are happy with the new content and if we can remove the POV message from the header. Thanks - and I hope you had a great Christmas. Eraserhead1 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've quoted your post on my talk page on the Forced Prostitution talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Domestic violence. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Edit warring on Domestic_violence. Please see these diffs for evidence [1][2][3][4][5] and this policy: WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil ^talk 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware Skydeepblue that violating WP:3RR is not permitted even if you are correct about policy or content--Cailil ^talk 17:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the Nazi Germany section of the forced prostitution article.

Can you discuss these please on the talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rape#Examples in the lead

In the above link, I explained my reasons for removing all the specific forms of rape from the lead. I don't mind working things out with you if you object. As I told you before (seen on your talk page above), I appreciate a lot of your work here. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Careful there - getting blocked for a day or two won't help you combat POV-pushing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Skydeepblue,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

Puberty article

Hey, Skydeepblue. I meant to ask you this earlier: Regarding this edit made by you, are you against the line about time between menstrual periods not always being regular in the first two years after menarche? I point out that it was attributed to a reliable, high-quality source (as seen in that link).

As for the Tanner source, I believe it may be more outdated than it is inaccurate. Or maybe it is more so representative of girls in general. I mean, the source you added to replace that line was about girls in the United States. That said, I don't object to your removal of it. You did make that section more balanced by expanding the range and mentioning another country. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean to remove the line about the periods not being regular in the first years. I deleted it by mistake, I only meant to correct the ages of menarche. I'll fix it. Skydeepblue (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

In this edit, why did you remove the recent Pajhwok Afghan News report? Life expectancy in Afghanistan rises past 60 years Did you bother to read that? CIA is usually not correct on issues like this. Can you please add the 64% because this is what the Afghan government claims. CIA does not do independent surveys in Afghanistan.--182.177.23.78 (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]