User talk:Historyguy1965

Hello, Historyguy1965! 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

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! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Marriage

First, please give reasons for your reversion. Second, check the source before you reject the corrections. Third, the added quotation IS part of the quoted material and deserves to be included. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cited definition originally is from Confucius, hence why it said "According to Confucius..." the added material was not from Confucius but by the author himself, it's misleading to include -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you averse to the inclusion of a mention to adultery in marriage? Is it the source? If so provide another contrary source or stop lecturing on your vision of marriage. Mrdthree (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you say "all cultures" and put it in the lede, which makes absolutely no sense. And I'm not the only one who says this, see the discussion, why is it that you and Adaprof01 are the only ones who want it in? Dare I say it has something to do with a pro-religious bias? I wouldn't doubt it -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a mild pro-religious bias, but not in the sense that I am religious, but in the sense that I believe in moral codes and respect organizations that have them. My orientation is mostly conservative so I tend to agree with religious organizations. That said, I would settle for: "Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage[1]".Mrdthree (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the appropriate section, is that okay with you? You're clearly not as biased as Afaprof01 (have you seen the edits he made) and you seem, in my opinion, to want to positively contribute to the article. What do you think of the move or do you insist on it being in the lede? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Users?

Hi. Sorry for not responding to your question sooner, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia just at the moment so I'm not reading my messages often. If you're having a dispute with another Wikipedian about the content of an article, our procedures at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should help you come to an amicable conclusion. If you need to report abuse by another user to administrators for speedy action, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or, more generally, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Hope this helps. --Nick Boalch\^talk 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariage again

"Undid -- this makes no sense, norms is sociological, marriage is diverse, You even removed "religion" - the same thing YOU suggest we put in, can't you simply decide already?"

No - because I am trying to improve the article and not promote any one issue. Hardyplants (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage

What do you think you're doing? You just completely reverted an entire paragraph that was the subject of a broad consensus back to an old paragraph that has been rejected as biased. Your edits have utterly no place on that article, and you should have consulted with others before making such a drastic change. TheFix63 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two people agreeing in a matter of 5 minutes does not emphasize a consensus -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on the talk page. Please post on my page only if it's really necessary. Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus was forged over days with several editors, as you'll see if you take the time to read the talk page. You haven't tried to establish a consensus for a single one of your changes. TheFix63 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you need to stop edit warring. SEEK A CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE BEFORE MAKING MAJOR CHANGES, like the inclusion of "marriage equality" in the very first paragraph. TheFix63 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about any concerns you have about my bias here, OK? There's no reason to keep bringing them up during other discussions on the article talk page. To be clear: I have a bias. You too have a bias. That's the nature of things. Now, your concerns?Ragazz (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - BiasRagazz (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please stop edit warring! All changes to the lead MUST go through the talk page. You're going to get the page locked. Is that what you're trying to do?Ragazz (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Since you want to talk about my POV so bad, here it is. I am a liberal. I strongly support civil unions for gay couples. To me personally, the word "marriage" means a union between one man and one woman. I oppose the use of the word "marriage" for same-sex unions by the government, but I don't really feel that strongly about it. I feel that the issues of world peace, the economic crisis and the environment are all much more important than the issue of whether or not to label gay unions as marriage, as long as those unions have the same protections. So I guess you could say that I'm literally pretty neutral about the issue, as in I don't feel very strongly either way.

As per my edits, I always try to follow the guidlines at WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:NPOV. My concern with the Same-sex marriage article is, ironically, that it is a bit slanted with loaded language (homophobia as a "motivation" for the opposition listed next to "reasons" given, "marriage equality" as a synonym in the first sentence) and POV interpretations of sources.

I am writing this because every time we have a disagreement, you accuse me of inserting POV. Of course as an editor here, it shouldn't matter what my personal views are. Please understand that I am doing my best to follow the Wikipedia guidlines provided, which pretty much prevent POV from being inserted when followed correctly. I am looking forward to working together to make it a better article.Ragazz (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]