User talk:NewLabourNewLies

Bisexuality

Hi there. I removed the above article from Category:Abnormal psychology as it's not categorized as being 'abnormal', by strict definition. There's no entry for it in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Alison ^❤ 06:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I have removed both Homosexuality and transgender and Transsexualism from Category:Abnormal psychology because they also do not belong in that category. --AliceJMarkham 09:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under DSM-IV Codes, Gender Identity Disorder are classified with codes 302.6 and 302.85 On that basis, any kind of transexualism is most decisively symptomatic of abnormal psychology and I will resupply the changes accordingly as indicative of best practice and desirable.NewLabourNewLies 11:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this invalid category from Homosexuality and transgender - please do not add these articles to this category. To do so is disruptive to Wikipedia and is a clear POV edit. B1atv 11:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's objectively referenced per the DSM-IV codes cited above.NewLabourNewLies 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise on Transsexualism - I STRONGLY suggest you seek community consensus prior to adding further adding further LGBT articles to this category. B1atv 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transexualism goes hand-in-hand with Gender identity disorder which is definitively within the DSM-IV scope and the overall subject of abnormal psychology which it catalogues and categorises. Consensus, as represented by the scientific and professional community that mundanely deals with this, is clearly with being that the same is recognised so decisively in the professional literature.NewLabourNewLies 11:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity disorder is already in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders, which is a sub-category of Category:Abnormal psychology. That is the only article related to transgender that should be in these categories. Please stop placing articles in an inapplicable category. --AliceJMarkham 11:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person who pretends to be, wants to be, or actually becomes a gender other than that which they are endowed with as a biological fact is apt to be diagnosed for the gender identity disorder that such behaviour is symptomatic of. The tenor of the most widely consulted and respected professional literature and widespread clinical practice agrees with that as a statement of principle and that underlies the appropriate categorisation process that has been and is taking place.NewLabourNewLies 11:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the articles in question are already in a sub-category of "Abnormal psychology". There is no need to add a parent category if the article is already a sub-category of that category. That is considered proper Wikipedia policy. WP:SUBCAT --Puellanivis 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --AliceJMarkham 12:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How hypocritical for you to add this nature of comment/admonishment/threat/warning when I see your no less that -ELEVEN- successive reversions of content I've supplied. The way you give such unsolicited advice that you clearly have no intention of demonstrating in your own personal example. Breathtaking.NewLabourNewLies 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

You appear to be adding the category Category:Abnormal psychology to a large number of articles, despite the fact the community consensus does not agree that these articles are properly part of that category. Your additions appear to be more about promoting a point of view regarding certain groups of people than about accurately portraying what the best available sources say about those groups of people. You are continuing to make these edits even after being asked to stop by several different users, so you cannot be ignorant of the fact that consensus is not clearly with you in these edits. Your edits are disruptive, and if you add that category to even one more article without using the talk page to first obtain the agreement of other editors, I will block you from editing for your disruptive edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. What you need to do is join in talkpage discussion rather than making threats like you do. Community consensus will only become apparent when a LOT more contributors have had the opportunity to put in their views on pros and cons. And even that is no confirmed professional and scientific practice which a good encyclopaedia is bound to represent faithfully and with preference.NewLabourNewLies 12:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Grief, you will be blocked from editing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account because it is not in accordance with our username policies. Also, your edits to the project have included a lot of pushing a political agenda. Please feel free to request unblocking {{unblock|your reason here}} to request a name change once you have read and can confirm that you will comply with our basic editing standards. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]