| Revision as of 18:11, 1 April 2009 editAllstarecho (talk | contribs)Rollbackers41,096 edits →Promiscuity: +r← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:43, 1 April 2009 edit undoCENSEI (talk | contribs)1,318 edits →3RR: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| We should jointly decide whether or not MSM statistics belong in the promiscuity article. If you prefer they not be there, I can see how their inclusion isn't needed and can be construed as POV. However, I believe that either all of the original, well-sourced, current statistics should remain or all statistics about MSM should be deleted. Thoughts? <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | We should jointly decide whether or not MSM statistics belong in the promiscuity article. If you prefer they not be there, I can see how their inclusion isn't needed and can be construed as POV. However, I believe that either all of the original, well-sourced, current statistics should remain or all statistics about MSM should be deleted. Thoughts? <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Stats dealing directly with promiscuity certainly do belong. The additional cruft, such as adding the continuance of the blood donor ban for gay people, doesn't. That was purely ] and ]. I'd also challenge anyone to use modern studies from notable sources, if studies must be used at all. Not studies from the 1970s that are most certainly irrelevant to today's society, gay or straight. I'm one of the first to take the bad with the bad, and the good with the good. Hence why I didn't revert of yours. But obviously I don't agree with whitewashing content to balance an article or a section of an article to one side of the conservative or liberal agenda. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">✰</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">✰</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | :Stats dealing directly with promiscuity certainly do belong. The additional cruft, such as adding the continuance of the blood donor ban for gay people, doesn't. That was purely ] and ]. I'd also challenge anyone to use modern studies from notable sources, if studies must be used at all. Not studies from the 1970s that are most certainly irrelevant to today's society, gay or straight. I'm one of the first to take the bad with the bad, and the good with the good. Hence why I didn't revert of yours. But obviously I don't agree with whitewashing content to balance an article or a section of an article to one side of the conservative or liberal agenda. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">✰</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">✰</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == 3RR == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Promiscuity|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — ] (]) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:43, 1 April 2009
 | Per this discussion, do NOT remove any categories from my page, even if they are red-linked or have been deleted. I will revert. Also, do not edit any of my code. I will revert. Thank you and good day. | |
| Archives | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| edit | ||
hey cowpoke!
You did see this I hope ... bring a towel! -- Banjeboi 09:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ya'll need Jesus...or Robert Tilton. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 10:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! I didn't see that one because SOMEONE didn't put it in the Commons gay category! But I'll do that as soon as I'm done here. Toby Keith would be so proud, an so would Heath Ledger! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 18:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Although, I prefer these 2 over the cowpokes: yum and yummy. I imagine these 2 images won't last long on Commons as I hardly doubt the uploader actually took these. I've seen these on the 'net before. Can we say copyvios? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 18:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- OMG! Farting preacher! Genius! -- Banjeboi 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeehaw! I must admit that I don't run into many cowboys in DC, although I've seen plenty of rope in various Dupont condominiums. Side note: I just realized MAL doesn't have an article. That's a pretty huge event in DC. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- The whole leather scene is pretty sparse. Most all the major events, titleholders etc etc are absent. The best way to get them revved up is to make one article really good so all the others get jealous! -- Banjeboi 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
American Family Association
Which part of "Watchmen on the Walls, which has been implicated in violence against gays in California" is supported by its source? Can you specifically say how they have acted out in violence against gays in California? Please respond on the AFA's talkpage. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Homosexuality
Hey, can you check out: User_talk:Moni3#Homosexuality ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
low in fat, high in protein
Promiscuity
We should jointly decide whether or not MSM statistics belong in the promiscuity article. If you prefer they not be there, I can see how their inclusion isn't needed and can be construed as POV. However, I believe that either all of the original, well-sourced, current statistics should remain or all statistics about MSM should be deleted. Thoughts? EJNOGARB 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Stats dealing directly with promiscuity certainly do belong. The additional cruft, such as adding the continuance of the blood donor ban for gay people, doesn't. That was purely POV and pointy. I'd also challenge anyone to use modern studies from notable sources, if studies must be used at all. Not studies from the 1970s that are most certainly irrelevant to today's society, gay or straight. I'm one of the first to take the bad with the bad, and the good with the good. Hence why I didn't revert this edit of yours. But obviously I don't agree with whitewashing content to balance an article or a section of an article to one side of the conservative or liberal agenda. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Promiscuity. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — CENSEI (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)