User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --Icarus (Hi!) 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Albert Cashier[edit]

I would like to direct your attention to the article on Cross-dressing. It states: The term cross-dressing denotes an action or a behavior without attributing or proposing causes for that behavior. Some people automatically connect cross-dressing behavior to transgender identity or sexual, fetishist, and homosexual behavior, but the term cross-dressing itself does not imply any motives. I would argue, based on this statement, that cross-dresser is a neutral term, and does not neccessarily mean that one does not identify by the gender which one has dressed as. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Edit:I have included more information on the category discussion talk page of female wartime crossdressers. Asarelah (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments. I habitually place references before punctuation, but appreciate the inconvenience required to change them; I hope the quality of the references makes up for it. In terms of the {{refimprove}} template, I'd dispute your claim that the secondary dysmenorrhoea section which I removed the template from contained "many unsourced statements": the article as I edited it contained not a single citation request in the section. In addition, it is accepted practice to put reasons for citation requests and templates in the talk page of an article. In the absence of any citation requests and of any talk page discussion, removing the template was reasonable.

That said, it's obvious from the previous edit you've highlighted that citation requests had previously been present, and had I seen your previous edit, I would have left the template in place. In addition, I would entirely support having those individual tags in place, as it's vital for those looking to improve an article to know where other editors feel it needs improved. Accordingly, I will reinstate them now, and ideally if you are able to explain briefly why those areas need improvement in talk, that would make life easier. Nmg20 (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing links[edit]

Hi there, please be careful when changing all the links from reparative therapy to conversion therapy. The first one links to the second, and there's nothing wrong with having an article redirect. I know that the terms are not synonymous but there may be specific reasons for using the first word rather than the second. I have reverted your changes to But I'm a Cheerleader and Jamie Babbit because the sources used in the articles specifically discuss reparative therapy.--BelovedFreak 10:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I had hoped that the comments by the editor above would be enough to stop you from making this foolish mistake, but unfortunately this appears not to be the case. Stop changing reparative therapy to conversion therapy! It is tedious to have to go through your errors and correct them, but I will go on doing it. In most cases, the change you made is wrong and seriously misleading; in some cases, the sources of the articles you changed refer to reparative therapy specifically, not to conversion therapy. Skoojal (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I will have a word with people on the conversion therapy talk page about this. You need to realize that Wikipedia articles are not necessarily reliable sources of information, and can't always be used to settle disputes of this kind. If the conversion article has been changed so that it perpetuates the sort of misinformation you seem to have accepted, it will have to be changed back promptly. Skoojal (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have undone the edit you made to the article on conversion therapy. It may have been well intentioned, but, as I point out on the conversion therapy talk page, it was a serious mistake. There's no consensus that "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" mean the same thing, and the claim that they do is definitely not correct. Skoojal (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

September 2008[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Eric Cartman 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. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination[edit]

Hi. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of birth control methods[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of birth control methods. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of birth control methods. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)