User talk:Dromioofephesus
Please post new messages at the bottom of my current discussion section, above the See Also section.
Please use Level 3 headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link and follow these instructions.
- 1. Add a Level 3 headline below previous discussion in this format:
=== YOUR HEADLINE HERE ===
- 2. Leave your message under the heading.
=== YOUR HEADLINE HERE === Your message here.
- 3. You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by inserting an em dash followed by four tildes (—~~~~).
=== YOUR HEADLINE HERE === Your message here. —~~~~
Archived Warnings
[edit]There are no archived warnings at this time.
Current Warnings
[edit]Before you warn me, please remember: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." (Hanlon's razor)
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]
March 2013
[edit]Please refrain from edits such as this one. Inserting "science" from the 1950s in an article such as this poses serious questions about your scholarly competence, and besides, it's just plain offensive to refer to homosexuality as a paraphilia. You're welcome to do so out in the great wide open, but not here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is offensive to those who consider it not a serious issue, but to those who do, it is against what Wikipedia is about to attempt to censor the truth. A reader who gains information from such articles might question why such acts are criminalized at all. It is a perfectly fine thing to desire steps toward anarchy, but to use such a widely-used Web site to promote such propaganda is not in the best interests of the readers. People read Wikipedia for encyclopedic and scholarly information, not to be comforted. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- What is offensive is that is you seem to be saying that homosexuality is criminalized (it is? not everywhere) because it is a sexual disorder. You seem to claim that homosexuality is a sexual disorder. That is precisely the kind of thing you need to check at the door when you sign in, since that can only be an opinion, not a fact. I hope you can edit neutrally: claiming that it's propaganda to say that homosexuality is not a sexual disorder is soapboxing from way back when. This is 2013, and science is not with you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- If homosexuality isn't an example of disorder, I don't know what a disorder would be. When I was sexually attracted to those of the same sex, I could tell that it wasn't right, and I'm not the only one who has felt that way. I hate to see it treated in such a manner on Wikipedia that would give people like me who deal with such feelings think that it is something that should just be accepted. Just as one can learn to abstain from food, alcoholic beverages, or any other physical desires, one can overcome homosexuality. And if current research on sexuality and epigenetics can be trusted, perhaps one day genetic engineering can remove any genetic impetus in the first place, such that punishments and infliction of pain will no longer be necessary to reduce its prevalence. I do not blame anyone personally for such thoughts, but those who have never had any attraction toward the same-sex (who appear to be in the majority) seem to assume that it occurs similarly to heterosexual attraction. I'm sure a similar reaction occurred when colorblindness was discovered. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is not the encyclopedia you're looking for. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- This page may also be useful to you: Ex-ex-gay. Your homosexual attractions are nothing to be ashamed of. Please try to stop hating a part of yourself. Climatophile (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't feel ashamed of my attractions because I feel like I have moved beyond them; I have gotten to the point where I don't even consider acting upon them. It's been a pretty remarkable change in my behavior over less than ten years. But now, however, instead of losing sleep worrying about how I will overcome it, I find myself losing sleep over seeing things like the article you mentioned. Homosexuals seem to feel like they can just take a pill and be fixed, but unfortunately we're not quite there yet. It takes time, perseverance, punishments, and a strong willingness to be in command of one's biological desires, rather than letting them take command of you. And you might never get the thoughts to go away, but you can recognize when they arrive and be ready to deny them. I imagine pedophiles have similar situations. However, such thoughts can be overcome, as can any sort of addiction, and it is very much worthwhile. There is great joy in self-improvement that is unmatched in most other endeavors, and I just hope that others who are afflicted with such desires can learn to overcome them as I have and perhaps even enter into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, forgetting about their SSA lust. What I feel ashamed of now is people who declare themselves credible who tell people that they are too weak to overcome their bodily desires and live a happy life. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- The homosexuals I know tell me that they are fine the way they are, and I hope all of them find wonderful SSA things to do during this lovely weekend. Whatever your personal issues are, they don't allow you to edit our articles in ways that are medically and scientifically unacceptable. The rest of this conversation is just too disturbing and I won't venture outside of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which is a subject I'm moderately comfortable with. Thank you, and have a great weekend. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't feel ashamed of my attractions because I feel like I have moved beyond them; I have gotten to the point where I don't even consider acting upon them. It's been a pretty remarkable change in my behavior over less than ten years. But now, however, instead of losing sleep worrying about how I will overcome it, I find myself losing sleep over seeing things like the article you mentioned. Homosexuals seem to feel like they can just take a pill and be fixed, but unfortunately we're not quite there yet. It takes time, perseverance, punishments, and a strong willingness to be in command of one's biological desires, rather than letting them take command of you. And you might never get the thoughts to go away, but you can recognize when they arrive and be ready to deny them. I imagine pedophiles have similar situations. However, such thoughts can be overcome, as can any sort of addiction, and it is very much worthwhile. There is great joy in self-improvement that is unmatched in most other endeavors, and I just hope that others who are afflicted with such desires can learn to overcome them as I have and perhaps even enter into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, forgetting about their SSA lust. What I feel ashamed of now is people who declare themselves credible who tell people that they are too weak to overcome their bodily desires and live a happy life. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- This page may also be useful to you: Ex-ex-gay. Your homosexual attractions are nothing to be ashamed of. Please try to stop hating a part of yourself. Climatophile (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is not the encyclopedia you're looking for. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- If homosexuality isn't an example of disorder, I don't know what a disorder would be. When I was sexually attracted to those of the same sex, I could tell that it wasn't right, and I'm not the only one who has felt that way. I hate to see it treated in such a manner on Wikipedia that would give people like me who deal with such feelings think that it is something that should just be accepted. Just as one can learn to abstain from food, alcoholic beverages, or any other physical desires, one can overcome homosexuality. And if current research on sexuality and epigenetics can be trusted, perhaps one day genetic engineering can remove any genetic impetus in the first place, such that punishments and infliction of pain will no longer be necessary to reduce its prevalence. I do not blame anyone personally for such thoughts, but those who have never had any attraction toward the same-sex (who appear to be in the majority) seem to assume that it occurs similarly to heterosexual attraction. I'm sure a similar reaction occurred when colorblindness was discovered. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- What is offensive is that is you seem to be saying that homosexuality is criminalized (it is? not everywhere) because it is a sexual disorder. You seem to claim that homosexuality is a sexual disorder. That is precisely the kind of thing you need to check at the door when you sign in, since that can only be an opinion, not a fact. I hope you can edit neutrally: claiming that it's propaganda to say that homosexuality is not a sexual disorder is soapboxing from way back when. This is 2013, and science is not with you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is offensive to those who consider it not a serious issue, but to those who do, it is against what Wikipedia is about to attempt to censor the truth. A reader who gains information from such articles might question why such acts are criminalized at all. It is a perfectly fine thing to desire steps toward anarchy, but to use such a widely-used Web site to promote such propaganda is not in the best interests of the readers. People read Wikipedia for encyclopedic and scholarly information, not to be comforted. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Same-sex marriage. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - MrX 03:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- MrX was way too nice by referring to this edit, "Same-sex marriage is usually sought by those who wish to use government protections in order to inflict civil penalties upon the innocent who desire justice", as original research. It's soapboxing of the worst kind, and I will not hesitate to block you for such abuse of the project. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Archived Discussions
[edit]- Archive 1: Prehistory - November 2008
- Archive 2: December 2008 - February 2009
- Archive 3: March 2009
- Archive 4: April 2009 - September 2009
Current Discussion
[edit]
| ||||
Content
Sorites paradox
[edit]Hi, this talk item may possibly be of interest to you. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't even remember making that edit. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BCClogo.PNG
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:BCClogo.PNG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
[edit]As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.
You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC).
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
[edit]
| |||
File:TPD Patrols.jpg missing description details
[edit]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)File permission problem with File:TPD Patrols.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:TPD Patrols.jpg, which you've attributed to Titusville Police Department. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, but unfortunately that file is like five years old and I don't even remember exactly who took that photo. It's just as well, though, because there's enough new photos with TPD's current markings that the file is not really necessary for the article anymore. I agree with speedy deletion.
Hi!
[edit]Hi, Dromioofephesus! How are you doing on Wikipedia? I saw your notice is what an encyclopedia is. --Allen talk 02:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
See Also
[edit] | ||
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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Dromioofephesus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Dromioofephesus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Theamazingdromiologo.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
