User talk:Destinero

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



Hello, Destinero! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Skäpperöd (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

More edit warring at LGBT parenting[edit]

Why do you insist on systematically suppressing all discussion of alternative viewpoints in the LGBT parenting article? Your deletion of the Stacey-Biblarz quotation, that "researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior" is particularly mystifying, since this paper is cited in every recent version of the page. You justify deleting the comments of Stephen Nock on the grounds that he "lacks expertise in developmental psychology", but this completely misses the point of his objection, which is raised on statistical and methodolgical grounds. Please consider that Wikipedia's readers are best served by having access to a full range of views. Vigilius4 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Vigilius4

What is an Encyclopedia?[edit]

Any idea? Is it a repository of contemporary understanding? Is it a soapbox to parade your ideas on? When you insert hyperbole, you are not helping Wikipedia nor, as a result, your own case. We have a healthy difference of understanding of the subject. I believe we can come to consensus and make a much better article, however. Oh and if you wonder whether I am some ideologue against LGBT parenting...nope. Don't worry. I'm just sticking with the facts.Tobit2 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am contributing facts based on the most reliable and reputable sources available on the Earth. And this is the difference between me and you. --Destinero (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at LGBT parenting[edit]

Your edits are being discussed at the Edit warring noticeboard. You may respond in that discussion if you wish. Taking ownership of an article and ignoring the opinions of other editors is frowned upon here. If you continue to push your own viewpoint without following the consensus of other editors, you may be blocked for violating the edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Destinero. Your response in the AN3 discussion is not satisfactory. My warning still stands: you must pay attention to the views of other editors. I think you have more to learn about Wikipedia policy. You are urged to read WP:Edit warring and WP:OWN. User:MishMich's opinion should be listened to, and he is still available to discuss this article with you. EdJohnston (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In answer to your response on the board, WP:CON is relevant here. My only interest in this article is your raising it on the LGBT noticeboard, it is not an issue I am directly involved with, nor an article I hve edited prior to your raising the matter, but have given an opinion as per your request. You have not managed to effectively work with others involved with the article, and have ignored comments made by others - both in this article and Homosexuality under the section on parenting. This appears to be a personal crusade, and while articles are not off-limits to people with an interest or without interest, such editing should be carried out in accordance with NPOV. There is no clear reason why a single source relating to a Supreme Court hearing should be railroaded through a number of article in place of legitimate sources by US national bodies (such as the APAs and others) simply because that document involved these organisations in the drafting. What concerns me is that this is done in a way that dismisses other editors' concerns - myself, User:Benjiboi, and others as irrelevant. I am not unsympathetic to the topic being addressed, but I am concerned about the way you are going about this, because this is not how things are done. I agree it can be frustrating, but if you work with others, this can be dealt with more effectively in ways that improve the articles concerned. There is no policy that says you have to remove multiple sources in favour of one source that is of local significance, nor that you substitute text written by editors in favour of text written elsewhere reproduced as your edit in breach of WP:COPYVIO, and then when pulled up for this, replacing the text written by other editors with large quotations which are still possibly subject to WP:COPYVIO. When you do this, other involved editors will simply stop working with you, the article will remain as you have left it, until somebody else comes along and seeks to address the problem in ways that ensure material that breaches policy guidelines is deleted - which then leaves the article poorer, because the original material that was there before you removed it, and which was perfectly acceptable, will not be there anymore, nor will it be unless somebody can be bothered to go back through the history and piece it back together and restore it. Mish (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't understand that reliable source should provide very important context on the field not only quote body after body with statement. Why do you think that 3 quotes without context are better than 1 conclusion written by all these sources? How is your version of article better? I edit under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Academic consensus and . You promote version of article which wouldn't state such important things like "The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. It is the quality of parenting that predicts children’s psychological and social adjustment, not the parents’ sexual orientation or gender. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples." Why are you doing this? You can suggest reformulation. I would welcome it. --Destinero (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have explained this on more than one occasion, and I have tried to work on reformulating this, but you reverted it. To be honest, I am tired of this kind of thing. I have enough trouble working with editors who 'appear' to have a homophobic agenda, without engaging in battles with editors who don't. I will have a look at the article again, but as it has changed so much, it might be a while before I can face it again. One thing i have learned here - there is no rush, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and we don't have to get it 'right' straight away. Mish (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S., can I offer a word of advice? When working on controversial topics, it can work better if you take a copy of the section you want to edit away to a sandbox, and work on it on your own, then bring the result to the talk page and propose the replacement, then involved editors can make suggestions and amendments in a less heated atmosphere, while the original is still available to draw from compare with, until consensus is reached - then the revised section can be inserted as a whole. This takes some of the heat out, and avoids disruption - remember that there may be people reading this article, and it will be confusing to be reading an article that changes several times within one or two days. When this is the odd word or sentence it is not a big problem, but when it is a whole section or article, it does not serve the readers well. Mish (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

capitalised source in references[edit]


Please convert this to normal case, and replace where you have inserted this as a source using the decapitalised version. Mish (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - no need to shout :-)

same sex marrige page pareting[edit]

My revisions reflected what the paper cited says. In fact, what any unbiased research must say to be regarded as such. Science by definition works by showing that something is not, it is impossible in science to show that something is. The fact that something was not proved to be doesn't prove that it is. In logic this is argument from ignorance. Please if you like to inform readers of scientific research be truthful not biased. Being biased and irrational just hurts what both of us are trying to do here which is to inform that sexual orientation does not have any correlation to bad parenting. The facts suggest that but when you say "the scientific research shows gay parents fit" you loose people that would otherwise be convinced of this position. The scientific research investigated the issue and did not find a correlation. the research looked to see if there was any indication gay parents were unfit having not found a correlation the study reported its findings. Now as a matter of opinion one, including me, can be very much convinced gay parents are just as fit as any other parents but that is a conclusion a reasonable person draws from the findings it is not the findings themselves prove. So if you like to write, namely that it is reasonable to draw those conclusions from the research do so, but remember an encyclopedia really presents facts it does not draw conclusion. In any case, please do not discredit the research by in effect presenting it as biased. Remember you are not trying to convince people like me who already hold this position. Only by presenting science in a neutral light as it really works you will help other readers understand your position and not just disregarded as impartial and biased. This is not a forum of personal ideas and preferences, this is a open source encyclopedia. Anyway, the line in question will be changed (reverted) to reflect the source faithfully according to Wikipedia standards and practices shortly soon after you have a chance to read this. Thank you very much gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your revisions didn't reflect what the paper cited says, since it says the same what I wrote to the article. It is prohibited to change it and I quoted the relevant Wikipedia policies on Talk Page of LGBT Parenting. Please stop misinterpreting sources. --Destinero (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert of Gorillasapiens edits[edit]

Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits

"Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). ... The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents. ... One recent study used a probability sample and thus provides a valid basis for generalization to the population. Wainright et al. (2004) analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which drew its participants from a stratified random sample of all U.S. high schools with at least 30 students (AddHealth, 2004). The researchers compared 44 adolescents parented by female couples and 44 adolescents parented by heterosexual couples, matched on relevant demographic characteristics, and found no significant differences in psychological wellbeing or family and relationship processes (e.g., parental warmth, integration into one’s neighborhood). ... Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. --Destinero (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My concerns: I won't argue, I have read most all the article, you have misquoted them previously in the talk page as well as in the article. Not the findings or facts, but the the way you quoted the authors assertion of their conclusions or their opinions as if the authors themselves had mentioned them as facts.

Second, accusations of vandalism, when one disagrees with another editor is not warranted. Neither is asking for administrator precious time without contacting others first. I am new to Wikipedia, but I know administrators are busy volunteers. Frankly, they don't need this, False accusation, not following the process of resolving disputes directly,etc.

Let me address each of the your concerns. First, you wrote: "Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. ." No dispute have been raised about the findings. It is the wording of the finding conclusions, the wording of the opinion of the experts, that are being discussed.

Next, "Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents." "That is it a fact, not disputed either. Adding that the page raises no problem. This shows how the research was conducted, no prejudice, no bias, no side. Namely, They looked with an open mind whether there was any difference. By design, a link could have been found. This is neutral yet it guides the audience to the most reasonable conclusion, that if no link was found, well one believes that none exists and reasonably so.

Asserting the opinion itself, scientific research has consistently shown no link exist, is unscientific, and anybody trained in science, instead of learning from it, disregards as biased.

Next, "The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents." " No, it does not demonstrate, it only demonstrate that no link, difference was found. Now as a matter of opinion, expert opinion if you will, we conclude, we deduce that is so. Here is where the disagreement lies.

Next, If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample." "here. Great, good job. This right but look how it is sounds in the article. If no evidence is found, parents are capable. No, it was right at the first time, if parents are capable, no evidence is found, nor will it ever be found. But the researcher doesn't hold parents capable, and then conclude there is no evidence. One looks for evidence, having not found any, one concludes the parents are capable.

Second point says: This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." Yes evidently, if one was trying to affirm the parents were unfit, but there is no what was said, quite the opposite , what was said was that no evidence for unfitness was ever found, Moreover, in this dispute, the burden of proof lies in neither side because saying no link was found doesn't show, prove, demonstrate, imply, document, or deduce such a link exist, in fact, it actually implies it is unreasonable to hold such position.

Third point, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.||| "It common, natural is understandable to consider opinion as fact when they personally relate to ourselves, the fact here is no link was found, the opinion is if that is the case consistency, then no link exists. The authors themselves didn't assert anything, why should we? Why change that? I submit, you did so only to make your point of view more convincing. To me, it makes it weaker because of the reasons mentioned, I think a neutral point of view is more encyclopedic, and so I will revert it to the original. Feel free to undo it. But let me know, so you can discuss it further. Thank you. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am actually willing to discuss this more in dept. I can really see your points and underestand them. Do you have Jabber, MSN, ICQ or something else to be able to discuss this online to see what can we do with all of this? Write it me on mail. Thank you for your interest. --Destinero (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, first I apologize for not expressing myself clearly, if only I had addressed your concerns earlier. I'd say wording of the facts, the findings, like you did on your previous talk page edit expressed is good enough. But I believe the best we can do is wait for a third opinion whenever it comes, we can work from there. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Somebody has responded - that you try dispute resolution. I tend to agree, because I see merit in both your arguments, which is why I am reluctant to say more. I am concerned that virtually the same entries have now been inserted into at least three different articles, and the way this should be handled is rather than having disputes on three different articles (acknowledging this relates to two of those, but three have resulted in conflict) is to have the material in the main article where it is relevant, and a summary of the main article as a whole when it is pointed to from within a section in another article. This has improved on the article not being disputed here, but perhaps this should be born in mind in this case. I am sorry, but I just do not have the time to see how far this applied to the same-sex-marriage article, having spent some time on the partnership article myself, and eventually deciding to walk away. Mish (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read this discussion and result carefully[edit]

I have explained why I have fully protected LGBT parenting at the above ANEW link. Please note that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they have not reverted 3 times in 24 hours. Please note that you are dangerously close to being blocked for such actions. Would you now reconsider your stance and return to consensus driven editing at the page concerned (and other articles) when that page reopens.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

September 2009[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at LGBT parenting. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VirtualSteve need admin support? 12:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|My revert was the only one and it was fully and clearly justified in status and even now it is in Wikipedia namespace without change. Thus it coudn't be regarded as diruptive. I ask stop block of my account (7 days) immediately since it is unjustified and I expect an apology of VirtualSteve.}} --Destinero (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing with blocking admin. --Smashvilletalk 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have left a comment at my talk page also. Destinero you are refusing to reach any form of consensus with other editors at this page. You are simply driving by and returning the material and you are doing so every few days/weeks. The article talk page was posted with discussion for you to add to and you were given 5 or more days to consider that content; to adjust the proposed version etc. This occurred after you attended a discussion at ANEW and you were requested not to simply continue to add your version of word for word text. It was only after you did not make any comment at the talk page, that the proposed adjustment was made with reference in the edit summary Per Talk page discussion; repairing plagriarism (sic). It is edit-warring for you to continue to just add your own version of what you believe to be correct every few weeks.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I should also add that in reference to your comment that the content is still in the article without change; this is because the editor who changed it in the first place came to my talk page to raise his concerns over your continued actions - rather than simply again revert your edit. That does not mean that your edit is accepted but rather is another attempt to reach consensus.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Destinero (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

My revert was the only one and it was fully and clearly justified in status and even now it is in Wikipedia namespace without change. Thus it coudn't be regarded as diruptive. I ask stop block of my account (7 days) immediately since it is unjustified and I expect an apology of VirtualSteve.

Decline reason:

Block rationale by blocking admin was sound. There was pattern of disruption without discussion. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Destinero, I am happy to see that you want to discuss the matter, which has been pretty lacking in your approach so far. However, I am concerned that you accuse Tobit2 of misrepresenting the source -- I see a different shade of meaning between "has found no evidence of" and "documented that there is no", but it is quite an overstatement to call that a misrepresentation. So I don't really like Tobit2's version either, but WP:AGF: it's clearly an attempt by Tobit2 to paraphrase the important finding without lifting text. It's quite over the top for you to suggest that Tobit2 be *blocked* for this, especially when you haven't bothered to discuss the matter yet. That said, I feel this block was a mistake, because in a way Destinero's edit was an attempt at compromise: the two sentences used were not exactly the same, and since the objection was that the text is lifted, the new one does seem substantially more of a paraphrasing. Mangojuicetalk 14:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a problem, as this has been going on for a while now, and Tobit seems to use this tactic to block insertion of certain material unless phrased in a way he is happy with. I have explained in more detail the way this maneuver operates. It is unfair to accuse of Destinero of 'drive-by reverts'. Mish (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I will be happy when material is not plagiarized and extremely pleased if attempts to repair plagiarism were discussed on the Talk Page. Destinero continues to plagriarize material; I continue attempts at fixing it but this is difficult because Destinero ignores attempts to discuss changes on the Talk Page and instead reverts repairs to plagriarism without discussion. These are the facts and it is why he has been blocked. That said, I would like to put some additional light on the matter. The crux of the problem is that Destinero is using the terms, "Research has documented," whereas I have used the terms "Research has shown no evidence of;" these may seem like semantic terms to the admins but to Destinero and Mish they represent an important difference in interpretation, and it upsets them. Nevertheless, since I was the one who repaired the plagriarism I used the words as I intrepreted them from the four sources cited. If Destinero had worked together with me to repair the plagriarism, perhaps we would have come to a different wording, but he did not. I think it is important to note that I have not attempted to revise the text since Destinero's block even though the plagriaism sitting there is gnawing at me as a flagrant example of abuse of authorship. But I have done this because I am hoping that someone, hopefully Destinero when his block is lifted, will work constructively to repair the plagriaism in a way that is acceptable to all.Tobit2 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me the simple question is this: Destinero, do you agree to use the talk page to discuss the issue? As long as you agree to and do so, an unblock should come your way. If you can't agree to this, you won't be unblocked. So, please answer the question. lifebaka++ 04:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Editor has agreed to use discussion pages to discuss content of article. As the blocking administrator I am agreeing to the unblock request. My personal thanks to all editors who helped Destinero to reach this level of understanding.

Request handled by: --VirtualSteve need admin support? 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

October 2009[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Same-sex marriage. 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. As I said in the edit summary, take it to the talk page, substantial edits such as this one require consensus, which you do not have as of the moment of this message. Continue to edit war as you have been, you will be reported. I see that you have had trouble with edit wars in the past, and I don't think the people who unblocked you will be too happy to hear you're doing it again. Stop. Since you are completely aware of policy, this is your first and only warning.dαlus Contribs 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

December 2009 and 2010[edit]

Sexual orientation article[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ckatzchatspy 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that you are making significant changes to multiple articles, copying near-identical text without specifically adapting it to the individual articles, and that you also appear to be infusing your own conclusions into the text, conclusions that seem to differ in some respects from the referenced material.) I would strongly recommend that you propose your changes on the individual talk pages first, as that would allow other editors to add their input into how to best adapt the material to the articles in question. --Ckatzchatspy 18:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I would highly recommend you either to specify or to apology for false accusations. --Destinero (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
For example, you've rewritten several articles to say "it would appear to be biological." However, many of the sources state that it is unclear, such as the APA's FAQ that you deleted:

"A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts."

Note that the page says favored by experts, which suggests that experts are uncertain but currently leaning toward one theory. That is very different than what you wrote ("it would appear to be biological"), which strongly suggests that it is biological. Look, I honestly don't care what the end result is, as I only ended up monitoring these particular pages because of past problems with an invalid reference source that was misused on a range of articles. However, when I see text being pasted more-or-less verbatim into multiple articles, and when that text substantially alters the information in the article, it warrants investigation. When said investigation reveals that the editor in question has had past issues with edit warring and lack of discussion with regard to a particular controversial topic area, issues that led to numerous warnings and even a block, it is cause for concern. The fact that you have been asked repeatedly to discuss potentially controversial changes, coupled with the fact that the articles you're editing specifically request such discussion prior to making such changes, underlines the need to make sure that these changes reflect consensus. I'm thus advising you to seek said consensus on the talk page first, rather than just dropping in your text. If you need assistance in coordinating said discussions, or perhaps even an RfC, I can certainly help. --Ckatzchatspy 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am very concerned with obviously untrue (false) claims you are spreading around me. I recommend you to stop with that immediately. I am waiting for your apology.
1. I've rewriteen no article to say "it would appear to be biological": -> "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." This is exact quotation of the one of most credible sources on this topic on the world.
2. Thus, you are misrepresenting what has been done. --Destinero (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to this, per you having been reverted before on this matter and the reasons in my edit summary. The Biology and sexual orientation article is more accurate when it comes to this bit of information. Most researchers agree that it is a combination of these things, not only or even mostly biological. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America membership controversies[edit]

In Boy Scouts of America membership controversies you recently added an extended quotation from the APA. Unfortunately the quote was (a) in the section on the BSA's position not in the section on reactions to the BSA's positions, (b) misused the {{cquote}} (see the template documentation for the Manual of Style references), (c) too long and (d) provided no context (e.g., when was it made and why). Please feel free to join the conversation at Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#APA_content but be aware that we are in the midst of overhauling the whole article so a close look at other discussions on that page is a good idea.--Erp (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting[edit]

Destinero, you have improperly reverted edits to the LGBT Parenting page on several occasions. Today is the most recent example. While I am trying to assume good faith, your behavior is making it difficult to sustain that assumption; every time I have seen any editor make mention of a perspective on this issue that is different from the perspective of the mainstream mental health community, you have gotten rid of it. I must say that I have had enough. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into an edit war with you. If you continue, I will consider taking the appropriate steps to have your edits blocked. I would respectfully ask that you please reconsider your behavior, which is both inconsiderate of other editors, very disrespectful, and completely violative of WP:NPOV. Thank you. (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've answered here: --Destinero (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is no longer fully protected (just semi for one week). Let's not start misusing undo and edit war should things heat up again. Instead, use WP:DR or ask help from admins. NJA (t/c) 18:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Destinero[edit]

I keep noticing your work so I guess its time for these:

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For adding lots of great stuff backed by most reliable and best sources :) Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
LGBT-Barnstar1.png The LGBT Barnstar
For improving LGBT articles! Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you a lot! --Destinero (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Btw, if you are interested: Talk:Homosexuality#Rewrite_agenda Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring block[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at LGBT parenting. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VirtualSteve need admin support? 03:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Destinero - in a previous warning and block involving, by memory, this same area you promised to go to the article talk pages with matters and content where you are concerned and to not just revert other edits. You have now again returned to edit warring - with several reverts today alone, despite repeated requests (contained also in your history) to cease this behaviour.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 03:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain why Ghostmonkey57 were not block? He didn't found any consensus for his edits and reverts! Wikipedia recommendations are pretty clear here. Single study in medicine-related articles should not be used. --Destinero (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a long history of this type of behaviour and particularly so at this article. Ghostmonkey57 tried to discuss the matter on the talk page and he asked you not to remove material without finding consensus. His edit was the first adjustment placed and discussion was started by him also at the talk page. You removed his edits on at least 3 occassions without stopping and asking for support, protection, or attempting to gain consensus, despite as I say having a history of this type of behaviour and with the benefit of previous discussions and promises by yourself, therefore knowing better. Ghostmonkey57 will receive similar treatment if he acts in the same way as you do - but at this time wholesale edit warring and attempts at ownership of this article by him are not being observed by me at this time. If you have absolute material inclusive of diffs of such edit-warring please let me know.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 11:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thus it is possible to him to add controversial material without finding consensus and it is prohibited to delete it? What is the logic and policies behind that? --Destinero (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not twist my response. If you disagree with material then argue that it is controversial by using the talk page - not by simply removing it and other similar items each and every time. It is the latter action that is edit-warring. The former is attempts at gaining consensus.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For Czech Wikipedia[edit]

Here, this article talks about studies leading up to removal of homosexuality from DSM. [1]. You can use it in Czech wikipedia. Good luck dealing with Czech homophobes. And report them to admins if they cause any problems... Phoenix of9 06:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

YAATRYG - Yet another attempt to reach your goals[edit]

Destinero, I suppose to write you here, because no other place is more suitable. You just placed on Czech Wikipedia (anonymously, because you are blocked just now) the link to Jimbo Wales talk page and requesting response from "some" of czech Wikipedia users. Actually, you was asked by Jimbo Wales to ask those Wikipedia users to talk back on Jimbo's talk page, but YOU DID NOT DO IT that time, even if you know that I speak english. You did it now, after more than month, when the talk page is already archived and no response is possible. Anyway, my only response in that case would be: please look on Blocking records of Destinero on czech and english versions of the Wikipedia:

I'm leaving this as No COMMENT information, because this speaks a lot and gives to anybody (including Jimbo Wales) a clear picture about what type of Wikipedia user you are. Best regards, --DeeMusil (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is self-evidence of your incopetence to react to factual issues regarding promoting propaganda of opinion of one individual on Czech Wikipedia where very much thousand times more reliable and important sources are (on English Wikipedia) where NOBODY FROM DOZENS OF ACTIVE EDITORS AND 6000 VISITORS A DAY SO FAR REVERT OR DISCUSS THAT INFORMATIONS FOR MORE THAN 6 MONHTS AND THUS VERY BROAD EDITORIAL CONSENSUS EXISTS is self evident. You represents majority of czech editos who break Wikipedia standards since you are unable to find and work with most reliable sources available in this world. Your effort of promoting undounded believes of one individual and declare and formulate that as a fact is stupid and have nothing in common with serious encyclopedic work. But what to expect from person like you who thinks of evolution as of unfounded theory and intelligent design as founded scientific theory? Nothing short of propaganda, demagogy and manipulation. Try to do on English Wikikipedia the same excess like those on the Czech Wikipedia. It would be only matters of minutes before your edits will be reverted and you will be blocked for vandalism ASAP. --Destinero (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right in one point, there is some self-evidence. In your case it is self evidence of EDIT WARs you led.
As you comment my competencies, I take it as YAPA - yet another personal attack. Calm down and stop your offensive language. I don't need to be here on your talk page, you requested response on Czech Wikipedia and here it is.
Additionally, your disputable opinion about breaking rules - I was not blocked because of breaking rules, but you... here and on CZ Wikipedia too (16 times), sorry.
About your quality of edits(or copy pastes) - it is not measured with number of article visits or how long (from whatever reason) nobody change that. This is fallacy.
About your opinions how sucessful I can be here - it is just your imagination. I used to make sucess from anything I do. I stated in my profile long before you arrive, that cz Wikipedia is my primary interrest. Look after your own (and very real) ?success?. You was dropped/fired by community, by community, ... did the arbitrary on reminds you something? IMHO very same reason everywhere. Sorry, but it is not all my fault, but it points self evidently on you. I have to STOP this talk here as I don't feel comfortable by responding your assumptions and actually, it is not the purpose I'm here. Regards --DeeMusil (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You are stopping discussion because you are totaly incapable to react to the facts like how it is possible that en wikipedia provide for a long time wholy different story about removal homosexuality from mental illness lists (en: supported by scientific empirical evidence: cs: political issue only and not medical). You are clearly unable to explain the stupidity of PRESENTING OPINION OF ONE CZECH FROM HIS NOT REVIEWED INDIVIDUAL WORK AND INTERNATIONALLY NOT IMPORTANT PERSON AS THE FACT. This shows total incopetence of you and Czech editors. You fears to do same editation here on en wiki because you know your homophobic and unfounded edits will be dealt in quick fashion. --Destinero (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DADT GA nomination[edit]

Hi. Why do you consider effort to work DADT article towards GA status as a joke? Something I did wrong? Why? Explain please. I don't have enough experience with this. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the page was in really bad condition, far far from GA level, and you had been blocked, so I assumed the nomination was a hoax. Hekerui (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific what to improve? Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality as paraphilia[edit]

Please join me as Talk:Paraphilia to rehash the previous discussions about why this needs to be in the article. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt for images[edit]

Hi there, the guidelines on alt text for images is hosted at MOS:ALT.Miyagawa (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Lamb (professor)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Michael Lamb (professor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. OlYellerTalktome 04:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  • You do not need to replace the "hangon" tag, the speedy deletion nomination has been declined. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)



I'd like you to participate in the revision of the Homosexuality article. If you'd like to join the discussion:


Pdorion (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Dobře, moje ICQ začíná na 167, kdyby náhodou bylo podezření že se za mě někdo vydává.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Incident Notice Board: Unconstructive Behavior on LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting articles[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


LGBT-Barnstar1.png The LGBT Barnstar
For your work on LGBT parenting :) Nowyouseemetalk2me 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to help with related articles because I'm gay myself, but I'm really not very informed on the subject, but will contribute if I have anything to offer. Thanks for cleaning up that section, it looks way better, you did a good job. :) Nowyouseemetalk2me 10:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, congratulations on this. Though I did tweak one of your edits, as explained above, I see that you have done great work here regarding LGBT topics. This article is one of them. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support[edit]

We all at times get too tight on a detail and a source and lose track of the bigger picture. I appreciate your being understanding and supportive of the effort, and thank you for all the good effort I've seen you do on a variety of articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Environment and sexual orientation[edit]

I posted a comment under Talk:Environment and sexual orientation#Removal of APA section, which you had responded to earlier. I wish to make a change to the relevent text but I want to give you a chance to respond first. --LogicDesigner (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop assuming ownership of articles. You have established a clearly defined pattern of repeatedly making controversial changes to articles within a specific topic, often without appropriate efforts to seek consensus. Whether or not your changes are correct, the fact that you insist on using this form of disruptive behavior - such as edit warring - is a violation of policy, which may lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ckatzchatspy 09:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you dont stop vandalism, you will be blocked. Think twice before doing something! --Destinero (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If you disagree with my edits in compliance with Wikipedia policies and recommendations, then try to discuss with community the possibility to change them or do request for comment first and not to automatically revert changes you don't like. It's only your problem to be able to underestand mandatory policies. I don't need to wait indefinitely to be able to do right edits. --Destinero (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not need to seek consensus on Talk page on something which is self-evident facts referenced by the most credible sources in the world, since it is in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and recommendations requiring to use up-to-date, credible secondary sources summarizing scientific consensus on the issue. Study mandatory rules here first and then comment other editors Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Your block log and edit history, along with the long string of warnings on your talk page, speak for themself. The onus is on you to participate properly within the guidelines established by the community. --Ckatzchatspy 09:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
My The Tireless Contributor Barnstar and two LGBT Barnstars on this Talk page speak for themselves just like thousands of edits helping to develop several key articles when owerhelming majority of these contributions remains undisputed and gently accepted for years as can everybody who is not much lazy to check. --Destinero (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Your attemt to discredited me on behalf of several mostly religious and ultraconservative individuals with POV countering fundamental Wikipedia policies and recommendtions of scientific consensus, up-to-date evidence based on the most credible sources available where owerhelming majority of thousends my contributions to Wikipedia stay intacted for years in spite of dozens of active editors and thousands viewers a day is absolutely embarrassing. Of course the truth would out every time so far and the truth will out this time, too. Your games is useless. --Destinero (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You have simply been asked to modify your behaviour to meet community standards for building consensus. Please do not attempt to distract attention from this established problem with your editing style by making spurious claims that I am working on behalf of anyone. The concerns expressed about your tendency to push through your personal prefered text are well documented on your talk page and elsewhere. --Ckatzchatspy 09:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions and impassioned arguments for the content at the MfD article is questionable in it's WP:AGF and WP:NPA conformity. I understand you feel strongly about the subpage, but please separate your personal creation of the page from responding to concerns raised about the document. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Discriminatory Speech[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

MfD nomination of Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ[edit]

Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your FAQ request[edit]

I am not going to weigh in directly on the MfD discussion on the LGBT Parenting FAQ, partly because I'm not 100% sure where I stand, but partly because your approach to me feels a bit like a WP:CANVAS. Having said that, I suspect that you will end up with a better FAQ and almost certainly a more bullet-proof one if you were to start it in some editing space and get other editors involved in shaping it before putting it into place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. --Destinero (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


this looks to have tipped over into the realms of PA. Consider this a warning to stop. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Truetalk's talk page.


Do you check your wikipedia e-mail? If not, please do and respond. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't get any e-mail and how to set up it :(. I even checked my spam folder. Please write me again: or use this adress as a jabber/google talk account. Thank you! --Destinero (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TbhotchTalk C. 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Fridae'sDooms talkpage[edit]

No stop hand.png
Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on users' talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".

Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update[edit]


Dear Destinero: Hey there! I'd like to let you know that in a Mediation Cabal mediation case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting

I've made the following changes:

I've made some initial comments on the dispute along with a little advice on Wikipedia policies, and I've raised some questions. I'd really like your opinion on them. Thanks :)

I would be most grateful if you would please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation, that's perfectly OK -- and you can stop at any time. If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thanks! NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Destinero, thanks so much for replying to me. I've replied to your response. I do actually have an idea I'd like to run past you: would you be interested in doing a little bit of research for me? Could you perhaps look through some sources to find some books, papers, etc. that are reliable sources on the subject of the LGBT parenting dispute that document the negative side, such as a history of the LGBT parenting movement? That is, not sources that present a negative point of view, but reliable sources that document the dispute. Would you be interested in doing that for me? It would help me a lot. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As I've just documented on there are not such sources on the subject of the LGBT parenting since there are not any dispute. You have the though it is, you are the one who has to prove that. The burden of proof rest on you. I am not here to help you to search what does not exists. --Destinero (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
And I am not specialized or aware enough of some reliable secondary sources to provide framework to describe the popular view on this issue. And I repeat I am not against to let such views be described, but they must to be framed as the popular view not the scientific or expert view. --Destinero (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your AfD vote.[edit]

Hello, Destinero. After you said you were changing your vote at the AfD for Adult sexual interest in children, I updated your keep to keep delete, and wrote a note to you there to that effect. KimvdLinde, on my talkpage, said that that was inappropriate of me and that you should be left to do so yourself. If so, I apologize. So, if you do indeed want your vote changed (so that the closing admin correctly considers your opinion), do remember to do so.— James Cantor (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you do for me. But it seems it is better to do it myself. Thank you for remembering. --Destinero (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

National Organization for Marriage[edit]

You edited this article back in September to remove tags. You also removed the organization infobox, which shouldn't have been done. As a result, this made the organization's logo image that was in the infobox become an orphaned image and it was ultimately deleted from Wikipedia. Please be more careful in the future about what you are removing. Thanks.  allstar✰echo  19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

POV problem in Same-sex marriage in the United States[edit]

Hi, I was not questioning verifiability but whether the statement had a neutral point of view. You simply wrote that religion is the reason LGBT people are discriminated against and you stated it as matter of fact without stating who said it and what the context was. This was not proportionate, even when you use a footnote. WP:NPOV advises: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Please try to avoid mistakes like that in the future, I tried to improve your formulation. Regards Hekerui (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, this is clearly a POV application of the material; you cannot place it in the way you did, it must be presented in context as was done here. Please listen to the editors who are expressing their concerns. --Ckatzchatspy 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm listening enough. Thank you for your input and cooperation. --Destinero (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at American College of Pediatricians, you may be blocked from editing. You have been repeated warned about your actions. Please do not add personal analysis, opinions, and other non-encyclopaedic text to the project. Ckatzchatspy 09:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Final warning, Destinero. You're clearly editing with a POV and a specific goal in mind. You have been asked repeatedly to work within the community's guidelines and policies. --Ckatzchatspy 08:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, it is up to you to justify material you wish to add. Once you have been reverted, the place to do that is on the article talk page, which I do not see you doing. I see you edit warring, which you can be blocked for. Franamax (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I find the escalation to warnings and WP:ANI troublesome, particularly given the lack of talk page discussion beforehand. Surely, administrator Ckatz knows he's not allowed to block when he is WP:INVOLVED, but a recent discussion surrounding administrator Cirt at ANI highlighted that administrators need to exercise restraint in issuing block warnings in such circumstances, because the user warned may feel the administrator with whom they are having a content dispute is going to block them personally. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the block warnings must be taken in context of Destinero's overall contribution history. It is most certainly not about a content dispute regarding this one solitary article. --Ckatzchatspy 20:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I myself have had some content disputes with him at Talk:LGBT parenting, so I know where he's coming from, but I find the rapid escalation and personalization of the dispute in this case unhelpful. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Rapid? Scanning this talk page shows many similar requests that Destinero comply with NPOV and discuss issues on article talk pages (not using WP:ANI as the first stop, which is where I noticed). This recent edit by Destinero is a classic violation of NPOV in that it uses the words from one group to state certain opinions as established fact, in Wikipedia's voice. Whether the opinions are "correct" is not relevant: such edits are POV cherry picking and not permitted here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wish editors were a bit more collegial in these area. I'm tired of the constant WP:BATTLE that seems to be going on. Even the Israel-Palestine editors seem more reasonable as a whole. Now Destinero has added an entire paragraph to the lead of American College of Pediatricians that really is debating LGBT parenting, and has no correspondent in the body of the ACP article. Destinero, see WP:LEAD. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Please read, very very carefully, WP:COPYVIO. "The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field accepted beyond dispute" is a direct copyright violation from Previous copyvios have already been cut from the article. do not ad more please! --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved? --Destinero (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep seems to be. On a related matter check out WP:WEASEL - words like remarkably and "every bit" are a little pointy unless directly attributed to a source (which I couldn't see in this case). have a good one. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It is so in this case. Look carefully on the amici source in PDF. It is well searchable. But I understand the attribution it is not needed here since the statement of fact avoiding this weasel words is preferable version of the text. --Destinero (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed softban at WP:AN/I[edit]

Dear Destinero: This is a courtesy message to inform you that a ban by community consensus regarding certain editing behaviours of yours relating to topics on parenting and LGBT parenting has been proposed on the Administrators' noticeboard. The ban proposal is located here:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_softban_of_Destinero:_WP:UNDUE_and_parenting_topics

The text of the proposed ban is as follows:

Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting.

Yours sincerely, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The above community editing restriction is now in effect [2]. Please be aware that you may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator for violation of this editing restriction and, in the instance of repeat violations, you will be permanently topic banned from parenting and LGBT parenting articles, and those related to them. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Crossposted in reply from AN/I) How long it will take? It is possible to ask for the end of the softban in a month or year or so? --Destinero (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is. What I recommend is that, say, in a month or so, you post a message here on AN/I asking for the ban to be reviewed (or leave a message on my talk page to ask me to post it, if you prefer). If you have managed to edit the articles in question without violating the ban, this means you will have had good practice in editing the articles in a collaborative and neutral way. It will also, therefore, have given you a cooling off period to better understand how WP:UNDUE and WP:RS is meant to work. I do understand that you have a very specific interpretation of the policy, Destinero, but your unusual interpretation of it is generally considered on Wikipedia to be a form of gaming the system as a way of countermanding the WP:NPOV policy -- indeed, there is an example on the WP:GAME page, example 6, that fits your behaviours very accurately. I think I've been as lenient as possible in enacting this and tried to keep it to what appeared to have de facto consensus from those editors who have dealt with you: this isn't a ban from you editing these articles; it is, in fact, not much of a ban at all, merely requiring that you adhere to the usual interpretation of Wikipedia policy. However, other editors/administrators and I have worked very hard to explain to you why your interpretation of the policy is at odds with the rest of the community, and it is wasting our time to keep dealing with what is in essence a synthetic dispute through pedantic use of a Wikipedia policy for a particular end. So, in summary: keep editing the articles within the terms of the ban, and this can be reviewed in a month to see how you've been doing. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Corrected. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Request redaction of personal attack,[edit]

This new section not only violates WP:CIVIL, but WP:NPA, in that it attacks me directly, instead of civilly discussing content, as should be done. I've already refactored the header to something more civil, but I request that you refactor your own post, where you wrongly exclaim that I have an inability to follow sourced material.— dαlus Contribs 04:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You have 24 hours to redact your new personal attacks, which wrongly say that 'I'm obviously ignoring policies', or have a lack of understanding regarding them. They are unwarranted, and as you have shown by doing so again, you cannot be trusted to discuss a matter civilly without attacking the other party.. when the other party didn't even attack you in kind. To this end, if you fail to redact your unwarranted personal attacks, I will take you to ANI to have your current topic ban broadened.— dαlus Contribs 19:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Destinero's disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.— dαlus Contribs 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


Destinero, per the AN/I discussion; you are strongly reminded to comment on content not editors. Your recent comments towards Dædαlus have been a little uncivil - there is no call for the sort of language you used. It is much better to edit in a collegial manner. To be specific; casting the idea that someone is either ignorant or deliberately ignoring something (be it source or policy) is too far and definitely non-constructive. This whole dispute was regarding a single word, I strongly suggest disengaging from the current dispute - and if it is an important matter come back to it when things are calmer and a compromise can be reached. To make clear; I have stood up for you a little in this because things can change, but you need to address these matters and avoid these issues in the future. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello there Destinero, this is Nicholas Turnbull here. I am writing simply to let you know that, at present, I see no reason for the terms of your editing restrictions to be extended to a total topic ban as, indeed, you have adhered so far to the terms of those already in effect. However, you should be aware that if you do persist in civility issues relating to the LGBT topics, a wider restriction may be enacted. I have put a considerable amount of effort into ensuring that you are still able to edit these articles, and that you are not subject to more drastic administrative enforcement -- had I not enacted the limited editing restriction, the chances are that someone else would have topic-banned you entirely. Please don't make me sorry for having done this, and please stop arguing in circles with editors about what to include in the articles. If they don't agree with your interpretation, you will not have your interpretation permitted simply by edit-warring; you must agree, civilly and in a cooperative way, some sort of consensus that is acceptable. I see evidence that you have made some efforts towards this already and so, therefore, I would like you to simply expand this type of cooperation instead of posting very long and incomprehensible blocks of text and links that really are not helpful.
In summary, help me to make sure that you can continue editing the articles, and continue editing Wikipedia. The next step, since mediation has already been exhausted, would likely be the Arbitration Committee, as a request for comments would be unlikely to be appropriate now. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology membership[edit]

I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage[edit]

Dear Destinero: You are cautioned that you must adhere to the terms of your community-imposed editing restriction when editing LGBT-related articles. In this edit, you inserted statements in "Wikipedia's voice" regarding veracity of sources. If you continue to violate your limited editing restriction, you may be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, as per the terms of the injunction. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several edits by that appear to be Destinero as well. --Ckatzchatspy 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of your community editing restriction relating to LGBT articles (diffs: [3], [4]). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion may be found here. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homosexuality[edit]

The article Homosexuality you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Homosexuality for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Family Research Council[edit]

Someone restarted the straw poll re: including the SPLC's characterization in the lead. You are getting this because you participated in the last poll. Please see Talk:Family Research Council to give your input on its inclusion. WMO 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk Homophobia[edit]

Hi Destinero, while I may agree or not agree (ie: regardless of whether or not I agree) with your sentiments here,[5][6] one generally does not add comments to a closed discussion. You might wish to retract your changes, and if you really feel the need to remake those comments, do it outside of the closed discussion. If you've got any questions, or need help with it, please let me know. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Destinero for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SarahStierch (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Destinero. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)