User talk:GayTenn

Hi, I reverted your edits on adoption, because your sources say nothing of adoption. Just because you can get married in Utah, it doesn't follow that you can adopt. We need s.t. specific. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source: A single person can adopt in Utah, except that by Utah law "a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage." A single person not co-habiting can adopt.^[1] Since marriage for gays is legal, the law can now apply to LGBTs.

That's WP:OR. We can't make legal judgements, which we often get wrong, we can only report sources. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying gay marriages aren't the same as heterosexual marriages under the law? The law says only married couples can adopt. You don't have a source saying gay married couples in Utah can't adopt, now do you? You have made edits with no sources to back it up. I'm just following what the Utah law says.GayTenn (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, my understanding of Mozambique is that the anti-gay law is still on the books. Govt officials deny it, and there is workplace protection, but it is still technically illegal. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Numerous US states still technically have laws on the books on sodomy and crimes against nature like Mozambique, but they aren't considered illegal now are they? GayTenn (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The US laws have been found unconstitutional. That's not the case in Mozambique. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the law specifically apply to homosexual acts?GayTenn (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe so. (It's been a while since I saw the ref.)

As for adoption, you linked to some refs in your edit summary, but not on the talk page, so only two of them were identifiable. Those did not support half the changes you made, and in addition have proven unreliable. I'm not sure where they're getting their data from, but it contradicts other sources. It's a shame that so little attention is being paid to adoption, considering how important it is to people. On the talk page of the world map, we have a section for references for any changes. The map had been in horrendous shape, and still needs a lot of work, but please provide sources for discussion instead of edit-warring over the map. The main reason it was so bad were a number of unsubstantiated claims that sat there for years without anyone noticing. I'm just trying to ensure that every claim we make can be directly justified with a reliable source. — kwami (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's my sources:

HRC: (largest LGBT organization in the country) ^[2][3]

Utah: ^[4][5][6]

New Mexico: ^[7][8]

Guam:^[9]GayTenn (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Half of those don't even mention adoption. HRC has proven to be unreliable: Arkansas, for example. Utah would require us to interpret the law, which would be OR. No-one has been able to confirm that mention of Guam. The only RS you have is the first one for New Mexico. I would assume that adoption is now legal in Utah, but that will require an reliable 2ary source to establish, so for now we should only add NM to the map. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok so here's what I did. I fixed the map. (you don't edit it right. You have to edit it in notepad, look up the abbreviation of the state, and change it there.) I put NM into the Joint adoption and stepparent adoption legal camp and kept all your stuff, expect UT, which I put into the Unknown/ambiguous camp since NEITHER of us have a source on whether same-sex adoption is legal in Utah as of December 22, 2013.GayTenn (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about this source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57295302-90/vanessa-katie-marriage-clerk.html.csp

Of course, Lisa and Valerie Lanoue say, these relationships were real beforehand. One of the hazards of making history is that the event can eclipse commitments that were meaningful in their own right. The Lanoues’ wedding Friday is a modest do-over of last year’s ceremony; their best friend is officiating again, and a few relatives have dashed out to witness. This time, though, the vow is between the state and the couple.

"This is our right," Lisa says. "It’s more than a piece of paper. It’s everything from taxes to hospital visitation to Social Security."

"And adoption!" a sister-in-law pipes up. "I want them to adopt!"

For Corey and Trish North, the wedding is all about the children. When they kiss at the end of the ceremony, their three children promptly burst into heckling "ooooohs" and smoochie sounds. Their 6-year-old daughter imitates her mothers, grabbing her now-stepbrother in an exaggerated embrace.

It's very hard to find a source for this, considering gay marriage has only been legal in Utah for like 24 hours, but this link is saying that a same-sex couple is going to jointly adopt children, it even says in the article that they have children together already.GayTenn (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A relative says she wants them to adopt. That doesn't mean they'll be allowed to. The only source I've found, here, suggests that there hasn't been any talk of changing the adoption laws. Without an indication that the law has changed, IMO we should keep the ref'd status quo. — kwami (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

But the law says any married couple can adopt. So I don't see how they can't adopt. The UT state legislature would have to pass another law banning same-sex couples from adopting, since there is no current probation on that. Plus your source is not a good source. First it says "Utah still has some of the strictest adoption laws, though, which are prohibitive toward gay and lesbian adoptions." It's implying LGBTs can't adopt in Utah at all. Nor does it take into account that married couples in Utah can adopt children. So the person who wrote that article is ignorant of Utah adoption laws.

That's a fine argument to make as a lawyer, but we're not lawyers. We also don't know what other laws might be out there that would support the opposite claim. We report our sources, preferably 2ary; interpreting 1ary sources is OR. — kwami (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jack Conway and Alan Wilson (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) 08:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Little (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) 08:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tanner (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) 08:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to let you know that I had to revert your recent edit to National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The charts looked awesome (I haven't figure out how to do that yet), but they were vote totals for the wrong bill. There are at least four bills in the 113th Congress named "NDAA 2014". The totals you had were (based on your citation) for H.R. 1960 which only passed the House. The article you edited is about the final law, which was H.R. 3304. I wrote much longer explanations about the multiple versions on the talk page: Talk:National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Let me know if you have any quesitons or suggestions. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I saw that you updated the vote totals for this page. The Senate ones look good, but the House information is still wrong. You cited H.R. 1960 as the source and that is not the correct bill. H.R. 1960 is a completely separate House bill with different provisions, debate, and procedural history. The only thing it shares with H.R. 3304 is its name. H.R. 3304, the bill that became the law that is NDAA 2014, was voted on in the House by a voice vote, which means there is no record of who exactly voted for or against it. That means a chart can't be made. You can see that it was done as a voice vote here on the official history page. I hope this clears up any confusion. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There are right and wrong ways to move a WP page. Blanking a file isn't the way to do it.

I don't know if it's time to move the page or not. But the cut and paste method you've now used twice will just get you admonished by an administrator. (I know. I've gotten such a note in the past.)

Why not make a proposal on the Talk page? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I just did that :) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Domestic partnership in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (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) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LGBT rights in Alaska may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• }</ref><ref>[http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_complete_bill.asp?session=24&bill=HB4002 HB4002)]</ref> On April 3, 2007, Alaskan voters approved, with 52.8% in favor and 48.8% against, an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LGBT rights in Alaska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Knowles (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) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why add a redundant map? It also employs that those county governments offer employment protections - which is false. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 18:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that many of the maps you are creating about LGBT discrimination do not distinguish between state employment and all public employment. Traditionally the maps show statewide on the national maps and then local laws on the state maps. I noticed that you have gone and changed a few other maps which originally used that format. They now seem to inaccurately imply that all public employees in those counties are protected. In almost all of the cases I have seen so far (although I have not checked every map), only employees or vendors of the state government - and not local governments - were protected. I think the domestic partnership maps you did were more accurate, the one for Michigan correctly shows the counties and cities with DP benefits, but does not confuse things by including the DP benefits currently offered by the state government (which are currently being disputed in court anyway - but active at this moment in time). In any case, I suggest either labeling the maps more clearly that these are state employee specific and not county-wide protections that happen to exist in every county, or remain consistent with the state maps showing local laws - which I think would visually be the less confusing since most of the maps already state they show city, township and county (not state) protections and laws. If you are planning on making that wide of a change, I would suggest discussing it on talk pages first, as it will likely only cause reverts and confusion in the future. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 04:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (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) 09:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

When you make an edit, could you possibly use the comment field to explain what you are adding or removing and/or provide a reason? You've been making quite a few major changes without explanation, notably to LGBT rights in ... entries. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and think that many of your edits are great, but without explanations are at risk of being reverted. If that happens, I highly encourage you to use the article's talk page to discuss, explain, and build consensus. I think you will find that many editors are very amenable to suggestions and changes - but tend to be resistant when they do not come with any explanation or discussion. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The color was not the only reason I reverted you, you were adding race to religion, generation to region, etc. Those things don't belong. If you want to add those things you should probably take it to the talk for discussion.

As for the color.. The reason I mentioned the color was another user stated the purple was too close to red. I suggest maybe using purple for the moderate percentages and the dark blue for the highest percentages..? Idk, that needs to be discussed at the talk as well.

--Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So where would Millennial African Americans go in? Would it be age category?GayTenn (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if there was a category for age/race. But since there's not.. you should probably take it to the talk to see if adding Millennial African Americans to the race category is a good idea or not. I suggest taking things to the talk more often. That way, they aren't any problems. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same-sex_unions_by_US_counties_and_cities.svg --Prcc27 (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see talk, you might like the other proposed map better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_USA_by_state.svg#Coloring --Prcc27 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the map was messed up from the start. There used to only be 3 colors (plus gray) instead of four. That's probably why dark blue was used instead of blue. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Republican Party (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to ABC and Gallup

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hispanic Americans

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LGBT rights in Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo (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) 08:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask why you saw fit to remove a large chunk of well-referenced information? Thank you! TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

None of those where self-described libertarians. Just because some source describes someone as a libertarian, doesn't make them one. I only added people who are self-described libertarians, meaning they call themselves libertarians. If you could find some sources of thoese people I removed who call themselves libertarians in an interview would be great and appreciated.GayTenn (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

LGBT rights in Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Orlando Garcia

Same-sex marriage in Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Orlando Garcia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recognition of same-sex unions in Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Jackson (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) 08:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Such a move is possible, but I don't know how to do that. Anyway, same-sex marriage is not legal yet in Montana, so I see no reason to change the name of the article at this moment. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Indiana needs to be updated for marriage. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Same-sex marriage in Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Jackson (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) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I made my arguments on David Jolly clear on the talk page over at List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the united states, I noticed you still hadn't replied to them and that David Jolly still appears on the map despite a subsequent edit by yourself, could you please remove David Jolly from the mapGuyb123321 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, why did you revert my edit? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of zoophilia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightenment and Liberalizing. 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) 09:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)