User talk:Branmuffin22

Your source can not be another wiki page.

A metropolitan area that Miami Beach is part of is not Miami Beach!

Miami Beach is not Miami

The Gayest list from Advocate is an opinion of a 1 person, it's not a fact. It is based on nothing. Miami (not even Miami Beach) is the last on that list and way behind a rural Vancouver WA?! This is not a credible list and has no merit. The author even states that the census was never done about this matter.

Organizations that are not in Miami Beach are not in Miami Beach, plain and simple.

If the the gay pride never happened before, it can not be "resurrected." It can begin or start, etc...

The police brutality cases peaked in 2009, not 2010.

Remember, this is not the city of Miami Beach website. The society do not need a copy of the city's website on the Wikipedia. If you want, you can open a section 'City of Miami Beach website' and post there.

TO WHOMEVER WROTE THE ABOVE UNSIGNED COMMENT

You make a couple of fair points, but your tone is rather combative, which makes me think you are one of the people who keeps altering the Wikipedia entry on Miami Beach in an effort to trash the gay community here.

The information previously included on police harassment come from one individual's (Doug? Who is Doug?) Miami411 blog, which is hardly credible a credible source. The information on the "ordinance" to which you refer is NOT findable anywhere. Your sources need to be credible and specific.

There seem to be a few haters who keep re-writing because they have some particular ax to grind. It's absurd and inaccurate, and it needs to stop.

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Miami Beach, Florida. When removing content, 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 content 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. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Beach

I have reverted you again on South Beach because your edits have messed up the citations, leaving glaring error messages at the bottom of the page. I don't have a particular opinion on the quality of the material that you are trying to remove, but I do have an opinion about careless edits that mess up the formatting of a page. If you are going to remove that material, then you need to fix the named references so that they continue to work properly. -- Donald Albury 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These were not "careless edits." I explained the reasons for the edits in my note to you. The fact that you restored the erroneous text for technical reasons is unfortunate. I did my best to remove the erroneous information and, as I also said in my note to you, I spent a good deal of time trying to figure out why my change resulted in the RED errors in the "cite reference" section at the bottom of the page. I could not find an answer anywhere on Wikipedia's help pages. I am not an expert at editing Wikipedia, but I am diligently trying to learn. I am asking for your help (or anyone's help), in getting rid of the errors in the citation section, so the changes can be made to make the entry more accurate. My concern here is the substance of the material, and not allowing misleading information to stand. Any help would be appreciated. Miamibeachguy (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To keep citations appearing correctly, when you delete material that includes a citation of the form <ref name="ONeill1">O'Neill, Natalie. "Gays leave unfriendly South Beach for Fort Lauderdale." ''[[Miami New Times]]''. January 12, 2010. [http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-01-14/news/gays-are-leaving-south-beach-for-fort-lauderdale/ 1]. Retrieved on January 15, 2010.</ref>, then you need to copy that string and paste it over the first occurrence of <ref name="ONeill1"/> you find in a section that you will not be deleting. Please note that if another editor disagrees with your removal of the material, and restores it, your next step should be to open or join a discussion on the article's talk page about the material. See Wikipedia:Editing policy for more information on how to proceed. -- Donald Albury 13:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for you help. I believe I was able to do make the edits correctly this time, and I don't think you will find any more broken citation references. Again, thanks.

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Wiki entry on Jeffrey Satinover. There is nothing defamatory or potentially libelous about citing the man's own words. The edits I made are logically sound, and reference an interview with subject of the Wiki entry in question, Jeffrey Satinover, in which he explains his himself quite clearly. Providing this context enriches the Wiki entry. I have therefore reverted back to the edits I made.

The violation of policy occurred here [1] where you called 4 living people "homophobes"--which was not at the article. Regarding the article, I requested that you discuss your edits on the talk page here Talk:Jeffrey Satinover. You ignored my request and reverted. That is a violation of WP:BRD. When you are reverted ("R") you must discuss ("D") the issue on the talk page. One more revert will put you at 3RR which is edit warring. If you edit war I will report you and you will likely have your editing ability revoked for a period of time. Furthermore the WP:BLP policy requires that content about living people meet certain standards. Your additions do not meet those standards and must be discussed. If you do not want to have your editing ability revoked, I strongly recommend that you start a discussion on talk. You seem to be new here--so I'm trying to be patient. But we have rules--and if you break the rules---by edit warring ---you will be blocked. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you're referring to my calling four living people "homophobes." None of the edits I made to the article contained that word. The reference you cited, which I guess is supposed to take me to the page where the word "homophobe" was used, just takes me back to this talk page.

Miamibeachguy (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy[reply]

Oops. Here is a diff [2]. Note the yellow paragraph on the left that I removed. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comment appeared on Sstavsky's 'TALK' page. The word "homophobes" was not my word. I was quoting a person who reviewed Satinover's book on Amazon.com. In any case, the word "homophobe" was never used anywhere in the actual Wiki entry on Satinover, so I don't see where the violation occurred. Miamibeachguy (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy[reply]

Amazon posts and similar carry absolutely no weight here. In this case you are fully and solely responsible for the remark--not the Amazon poster. The post I deleted is clearly covered under WP:BLPTALK. If you want me to put it back I will: however rest assured an admin will come along in due time and not be as nice about this as me. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the purpose of 'talk' pages was to have a free and open discussion about conflicts in the way Wiki articles are presented. You seem to be suggesting that such an open discussion is prohibited, if it happens to say something you personally don't like, or which you, personally, judge to be unflattering to the subject of the article. I have two questions: 1.) Please show me where in the Wikipedia rules it says that the word "homophobe" is libelous, or potentially libelous...? For all we know, Jeffrey Satinover would wear that word as a badge of honor. 2.) Where in the Wikipedia rules does it say that quoting an Amazon book review--in the 'talk' section--is prohibited?

I'm more than happy to have a discussion about this. Satinover's words speak for themselves, and he has many critics, as I intend to show by whatever means necessary through policy-compliant edits to the "Jeffrey Satinover" Wiki page. You keep deleting most of my edits without explanation. This strikes me as going against the spirit of truth-seeking in Wikipedia articles. So I am asking you to explain, in detail, your reasons for undoing each of my edits. If you continue to edit without explanation, one might conclude you are trying to stifle a presentation of the full picture of Satinover's ideas, which in many cases are well outside the mainstream of academic thought, and which, on the subject of homosexuality in particular, are considered by many to be offensive and dehumanizing to the entire population of gay and lesbian people.

Miamibeachguy (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy[reply]

My personal opinion is irrelevant. BLPTALK prohibits "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices." Is it contentious to call a 4 living people homophobes? I think most people would say yes. Is a post on Amazon.com a "poor" source? WP:BLPSPS says "Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." Thus Amazon.com cannot be used as a source labelling people as homophobes. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious" is in the eye of the beholder and, in the end, you seem to be using your own, personal standard to define what it is. I would contend that it is not contentious to reference a point of view that is widely held. In any event, all we're discussing here it something that was written on the 'talk" page, and it is not important to me that Satinover (or his cohorts) be labeled, on a 'talk' page, in a manner you consider to be "contentious." What matters is that the full truth of Satinover's writings be known on the Wiki page about him. This brings me back to my other question, which you have not yet answered: Why have you undone almost all of my edits to the actual Wiki page about Jeffrey Satinover?

Miamibeachguy (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy[reply]

My reverts of your additions were based on the letter and spirit of BLP. From WP:BLP: "BLPs must be written conservatively", "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims". Sourcing of BLPs is crucial and poor references will result in deletion. From WP:QS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest..." And lastly WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." And about the lede. The lede is a summary of the important points in the article. We must be judicious in the amount of detail we present. Material not found in the body should not appear in the lede. See WP:LEDE. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservatively," according to whom? There is nothing sensationalist or "titillating" about telling the truth, nor about directly quoting the subject of the BLP or one of his books. There is nothing "questionable" about citing scientific organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association, or articles that reference these groups' position statements, or about including references to the websites and pamphlets of organizations that cite Satinover's work. I will agree that certain information I had added might be more suitable when moved to other sections of the article about Satinover; however, I do not agree with your blanket deletion of information that you deem unflattering to Satinover. A great deal of what Satinover has written is widely discredited by the reputable scientific community. Any reasonable reading of the history of Satinover's work on sexual orientation shows him to be clearly in the anti-gay camp. He traffics in anti-gay stereotypes and old, discredited research. His work is used exclusively by the anti-gay side, in efforts to dehumanize and deny rights to LGBT people. Do you have a particular interest in hiding these facts? I have further specific questions about your edits on your talk page. I look forward to your reply. --Miamibeachguy (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick response to your issues at my talk. Yes the APA is a RS. But are they specifically talking about Satinover's theories? Have they reviewed his writings and issued an opinion? You can't make a list of organizations that cite his work and then write "He is cited by ex-gay organizations." That is WP:OR. You need a source that specifically says "His work is cited by anti-gay orgs." Which quote did I remove? I removed your synopsis of the book because it was not sourced. The source you cited, "10 Myths", does not mention the book at all. The source you used for Satinover's work with sex change efforts did not mention Satinover. Keep in mind you cannot mix and match sources to arrive at a conclusion. That is WP:SYNTH. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC) And btw, you may want to read WP:NPA. We do not dicusss editors here: only content. If you think I am Satinover you should bring it up at WP:COIN. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]