User talk:Dvd-junkie

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dvd-junkie! I am Gman124 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Gman124 ^talk 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. ThemFromSpace 21:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Read sources carefully

Please read sources carefully before making changes to sourced information. In particular I note you made this change [1] however if you read the source, it's clear that according to this source, he says he's 50 in the video. I have no interest in this meme, but did listen to this part after your change, and he does say something that sounds like "I'm 50". If you dispute the accuracy of their transcription, then you should suggest that the transcription is no longer used as a source since it can't be considered reliable in such a case. If the knowyourmeme transcription is still used a source, and you still feel there is merit to dispute the accuracy, you ideally should find a source which provides an alternative transcription or at least disputes the knowyourmeme transcription. Either way, provide additional clarification (e.g. in a footnote say there is dispute over what he said) since 'supposedly' is confusing given that for both of them we are relying on what they said their ages were (even if there is dispute over what they said), not on some other external source. Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

De-redded your user page.

Hi dvd-junkie,
          You've been contributing for nearly a year now, so I thought you might not mind if I put a little info into your user page so that your link to your user page that shows up on all of the edit history pages that you've worked on, doesn't come up as red any longer. Thanks for the good edits to the Hutaree.

Scott P. (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases: You have removed more than one NAMBLA reference

Your comment referred to the NAMBLA, but you have also removed the references to quite a number of research studies. Please explain your deletions. joo (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

However, Family Research Institute founder and psychologist Paul Cameron, reviewing more than 19 different academic reports and peer reviewed studies in a 1985 Psychological Reports article, found that homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in an 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior

article, places it at 86% when the children being molested are male.

In a 1992 study, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson reported that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. In 1993, the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, issued a study that analyzed 102 court martial convictions having to do with soldiers involved in homosexual acts over a four-year period. The study found that in 47% of the cases, the homosexual men had victimized a youth.

In 2000, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by seven sex researchers concluding that ‘‘around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles."

The North American Man/Boy Love Association was a member group of International Lesbian and Gay Association for a decade until early 1994 after ILGA's consultative status with the United Nations was granted and revoked.

Dvd-junkie, I noticed that you've been arguing with other editors on the page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases about homosexuals committing paedophilia and other related issues. Please remember that talk pages are not forums for discussion of the article's topic and that personal attacks are not allowed. (Huey45 (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Dear Huey! The argument that you mentioned is on the subject article. Please note, that I have not made any personal attacks, merely pointed out that unfortunately, one of the editors kept on inserting information that seems biased, is either badly sourced, not sourced at all, misrepresented its sources or is off topic. By the way, is it me you were referring to as “a troublemaker”?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dvd-junkie. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 04:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scott Lively

I have created a new section to the Scott Lively discussion. Please take your comments about the deletion that you made to the Scott Lively page to the discussion page which is more appropriate than posting to my userpage. Thanks. Pjefts (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Drought Conditions

Hey there! I was in the process of making an article on the West Wing episode "Drought Conditions" (it's the only episode with no article!!) but in Googling for some material, I happened to notice that you have a more-or-less complete draft in your userspace. Do you mind if I move it, or mind moving it yourself? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, I think DRV or some sort of board might be appropriate. It's not that I think the administrator closed the discussion incorrectly - after all, there were no votes to keep - but I think it should be re-created and it's liable to be speedied if there's no discussion first. My argument would highlight the fact that this sparsely-attended deletion discussion must stand against what seems to be a tacit consensus to keep West Wing episode articles, evidenced by the fact that no others have ever been nominated (as opposed to characters and concepts, which have been nominated and deleted/redirected), as far as I can tell, and that the issue of precedent was not raised in the AfD. As well, having this one episode absent is deleterious to understanding of surrounding episodes and to navigation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

God bless you

I just wanted to salute you for calling it like it is on the Star Trek Generations page. You'd renamed it what it should be as of today, Star Trek: Generations. It's too bad that it's Star Trek Generations, right now. It's very inconsistent and annoying. Just wanted to rally with you in a quirky fashion. Wes Brooks 16:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesbrooks (talk • contribs)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)