AV3000

Thanks

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for keeping my user page vandalism-free! P. D. Cook Talk to me! 12:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your efforts in combating vandalism and folks who use talk pages as a forum! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your efforts in keeping users information private, and in promptly calling attention to instances where privacy may have been violated! -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for all the good clean-up work you regularly do on same-sex marriage-related articles! Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pink News

Thanks for correcting "Mr", sometimes it seems there's so many rules and guidelines to keep track of that i'm fearful to even sneeze. I appreciate the help in improving the article =] Jenova20 22:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

DADT

DADT was not enacted into law. Much of it was, but the entire "Don't ask" part was not. That part was included in DOD directives. I will be making that clear in my updating of the DADT entry, which I'm working on. The whole enactment/initiation of the policy is not dealt with very well in the DADT entry, especially compared to the great length with which we cover the lifting of the policy. But even now the DADT entry says:

Congress included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[33] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993,[34] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.

(There were actually a bunch of directives.) So it's clear that it took two actions to get DADT into place. It was partly enacted and partly established by military directives which could be withdrawn at any time because they were not legislated. That's one of the reasons hard-line critics of DADT who wanted to return to open inquiries about sexual orientation were mad at George W. Bush for not simply withdrawing the directives and going back to asking the sexual orientation question outright, which he could have done.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree except for the last detail: George W. Bush could not issue any Executive Order against the misnomer "DADT" law because the fine print of the law was that the matter was up to Defense Secretary when to discontinue DADT. This was a well-hidden, legal fact as the law effectively blocked the POTUS from overturning DADT by EO and left the matter to the hands to the Defense Secretary, whom was also responsible and required by that law to promulgate regular training of the ban on homosexual behavior in the military. There was a lot of misdirection and misinformation going on with all parties who wanted to repeal DADT forward, keep DADT, and repeal DADT backward to before DADT days. DADT was already "repealed" by the law itself; but in the repeal DADT backward direction by a simple command of the Defense Secretary. In a sense, the "DADT" law was ignored by the DADT policy that was allowed to persist and caused so much commotion and statistical number crunching that left out much of the pre-DADT statistis to give the real story.

RTHJr (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Anderson Cooper

Hi. I don't think that the summary reason of yours is sufficient enough. Could you specify what do you mean by "WP:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Purpose_of_WikiProject_banner_tags"? If this is an automatic bot assigning automatic messages then I'm really sorry and I would like to talk with its operator then. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Simply follow the link to read about the Purpose of WikiProject banner tags, which is not to categorize the subject itself but rather to group articles of interest to project communities. (For another example, see the Fred Phelps article.) AV3000 (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your clarification. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Village Voice ref

I was going to reply here, but I'll do it at the talk page instead. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:LGBT rights table Europe

Hi. Could you give your opinion to edit by Eraserhead1? See [1] Ron 1987 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

cafe odeon in gay bar

hello, i was wondering if i could get your help and advice with Patagonian (talk · contribs) who has been acting in an rather disruptive manner on the gay bar page. ignoring all evidence contrary to his position, he has rather obviously reverted again using using an ip sockpuppet, and i am right up against the 3rr myself. --emerson7 16:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Coalition for Marriage

Thanks for the revert, i didn't know if i should do it or not and so i left it. Thanks Jenova20 08:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Conversion therapy

Was the lead updated? Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks neutral and informative to me. Strange not to see edit warring on such a page... Sorry to butt in Jenova20 08:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but does the lede really need to raise the Spitzer study, its problems, and its author's recantation? AV3000 (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on my user page. No idea who that is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well

You haven't been around reverting things lately, and I'm leaving this note to just state that you are missed and needed here, and that I hope you're doing well. I would email you, but you don't have an email set up to your Wikipedia account.

Hope to see you return soon. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)