User talk:Johnmichaeljfc

Welcome!

Hello, Johnmichaeljfc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdChem (talk • contribs) 05:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Joseph Nicolosi

Hi John,

I have undone your changes to the biography of Joseph Nicolosi as you removed a considerable amount of material without explanation. Your are entitled to make bold edits, but when they are challenged the next step in what we call the BRD cycle is to start a discussion at the article's talk page (talk:Joseph Nicolosi, in this case). You might not agree with how reliable sources have described Nicolosi's work, but at Wikipedia, we follow those sources and to try avoid adding our own opinions or unpublished original research.

EdChem (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdChem,

I apologise for the lack of explanation.

I want to better organise the page to clearly separate his biography from controversy with a separate controversy section.

Thanks!

Johnmichaeljfc (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Controversy sections as it is usual editing practice to avoid the kind of separation that you are describing. EdChem (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

John, the series of edits you have made to the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality page are what is called an edit war on Wikipedia, and it is not allowed. When you make a bold edit and someone undoes (reverts) it, the next step is to discuss the issue at the article's talk page – here talk:National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. We call this the BRD cycle, for Bold-Revert-Discuss. We have a 3 revert rule which is a bright line... if you make more than three reverts to an article in a day, you can be blocked from editing by any uninvolved administrator, and you are right up to the line now. Stop! Discuss with FreeKnowledgeCreator at the article talk page and with any other editors who wish to participate. Note, however, that Wikipedia is guided by policies on content and a process of consensus, and you may find your edits are not supported by others. EdChem (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that FreeKnowledgeCreator has started a discussion for you, at the NARTH article talk page. I strongly advise you to stop editing the article and join in a conversation. EdChem (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem,

Just to clarify this was not an intentional act of edit war.

I was not under the impression that it was an edit war since the information I removed was redundant on the page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.119.159 (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war occurs wen editors repeatedly undo / revert changes made by others. It does not matter if what is being added / removed is redundant, only that there is a conflict occurring over what to include. There are some exceptions but for the most part, edit warring is not allowed and can lead to blocks that temporarily prevent further editing. My advice is if someone undoes something you did, start a discussion. :) EdChem (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdChem,

I apologise. I didn't understand why some of the edits were not showing up, so I went back and "re-tried" them, not realising what was occurring.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.119.159 (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice for anyone editing gender-related topics

Hi, Johnmichaeljfc,

I realize you are a somewhat new contributor, and that it takes quite some time to get familiar with the thicket of guidelines, policies, conventions, and procedures around here, so I just wanted to add my welcome. It turns out, that for certain controversial topics, the ArbCom, Wikipedia's High Court, more or less, has made a few rules even more arcane and strict, than anywhere else, because this list of controversial topics tends to attract more disputes, rule-bending, and other difficulties in editing such topics. If you're reading between the lines, you've probably guessed by now, that a couple of the articles you have edited, notably NARTH and Conversion therapy, both fall squarely in one of these controversial topics, namely, gender-related articles.

So, I wanted to make sure you knew about these stricter rules, just so you know to step extra lightly, and extra carefully, when editing these articles. None of this applies to any of the artices on Portugal, for example, which is considered not to be a controversial topic, in need of special attention and enforcement. ArbCom has come up with a standard notice, that is supposed to be given to any editor editing in these areas, just so they are aware of them. And, rather than putting it in my own words, it's best if I just include it verbatim; so you'll find it directly after this message. You should read it, and try to understand it, but if it all seems like Greek to you at this point, dont worry about it too much. To be absolutely clear about this: this notice is for *anybody* who edits in this area. It is not a response to anything you have done, and it is not a request for you to change anything you are doing. It's just advice about current rules in effect. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me, EdChem, or any experienced editor. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.