User talk:Defensor1956

University of Dallas

Hi. Thank you for your message. I protected the article because another editor made a request at WP:Requests for page protection.

I may have protected your favored version, but please don't take that as a sign of approval of that text or your editing methods. I recommend that you take this opportunity to discuss your difference of opinion with other editors on the article's Talk page. Remember that edit-warring may lead to your being blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lazarus

Hi. First, thank you for your contribution to the article on Frank Lazarus.

In response to your changes added on 22 March 2011, I have created a Talk Page for this article. I welcome your comments.

Andrewincowtown (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homophile

If you would, please avoid "bare URLs". This is a ref such as <ref>http://www.google.com</ref> Better would be <ref>[http://www.google.com Google search engine]</ref> (note the brackets: []). Even better would be <ref>{{cite web |url= xxx |title= xxx |date= |access= (today)}}</ref> See wp:cite, template:cite web, and others... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will follow that format from now on.Defensor1956 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Please enable e-mail communications by editing your Preferences (see top of page) in line with WP:ENABLEEMAIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.136.208 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

Hi. Could you please join the discussion at Talk:Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute? I am concerned that some of your edits were in danger of breaking some of our policies. These include WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Is there a particular source that is problematic? I can try to find a better one. Defensor1956 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of doubt that, since I told you the JudicialWatch source was bad and you re-added it twice anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JudicialWatch source bad as in inaccurate reporting (i.e. formal petition was not submitted to DoD)? Because I do not buy that line. Which is why I re-added it twice. Will refrain from re-posting if you provide interpretation of WP policy leading to "bad" determination Defensor1956 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. A celebrity could write in their blog about their favorite brand of cheese, and it would be verifiable, but it wouldn't belong in their article and certainly not in the article on the cheese.

Also. Based on your edits I strongly suspect that you have a financial conflict of interest regarding Austin Ruse. Please read WP's policies on conflict of interest and exercise caution when editing articles related to people or organizations with which you are affiliated. Avoid promoting or defending them as you have been doing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have hit the 3RR (3-revert rule) for edit-warring. This rule is a bright-line rule means that you may not make more than three reverts in 24 hours. If you continue to revert, you may be blocked for edit-warring. Instead of edit-warring, start a discussion on the talk page and gain consensus for your edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Southern Poverty Law Center shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I will refrain from reverting. I hope this policy applies to reverts to my posts as well.

I have no financial conflict of interest with Ruse whatsoever. He is an active and public participant in a broad cultural debate over Christian values. The recent designation of C-FAM as a hate group was notable, and I wanted to contribute to the discussion.Defensor1956 (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I say this is because literally every single one of your edits is devoted to Ruse or to an organization with which he is affiliated. Don't say I didn't warn you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be interested in the truth about a particular person or organization without financial conflict of interest? Answer is yes. Defensor1956 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Category:Christian organizations based in the United States

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:C-FAM logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:C-FAM logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086 ^Talk 04:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Frank Kameny. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Allegation

This is ridiculous. I have been editing Wikipedia for 3+ years. In no way was I recruited to join Wikipedia for the purposes of defending C-FAM from the SPLC's allegations of hate group status in 2014. This is easy to verify. The only explanation is a personal vendetta by Roscelese and other LGBT ideologues. For the sake of the Wikipedia community, I hope she stops.Defensor1956 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Requesting my account be unblocked. One year hiatus seems to be an appropriate term. --Defensor1956 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]