PinkPolitico80
Welcome to Wikipedia
editHello, I hope that you will keep contributing to this wonderful encyclopedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing articles about restrictions on blood donations by gay people. Let me begin by saying that I am sympathetic to your point of view. I am a straight man who has been supportive of gay rights for many years. I began donating blood in San Francisco nearly 40 years ago, when gay organizations often supported blood donation drives. I marched in support of gay rights before the HIV/AIDS epidemic began, and witnessed some of the earliest cases as a hospital worker in 1981. I favor gay blood donors as long as a current HIV test is negative.
That being said, I encourage you to realize that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that reports on what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. It is not a place for advocacy. Please read more about what Wikipedia is not. Articles must be written from the neutral point of view, and controversial additions have to gain consensus before being added. We have a strong policy against edit wars - please read WP:3RR for more information. Editors will be blocked for edit wars, and you are now on the brink of violating that policy. The proper thing to do is to discuss and debate your proposed changes on the article's talk page.
Please feel free to ask me questions about how Wikipedia works. I encourage you to read and study our policies and guidelines before criticizing the good faith efforts of other experienced editors. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. There are two main points I would like to make in relation to this matter. Firstly, a number of countries have changed their rules regarding gay men donating blood and I think this should be recorded on both pages as it serves to inform readers that other countries have adopted polices in this area that differ from Ireland and the US. A recent ruling by the European Commission declaring such bans to be illegal under EU law also needs to be added to the pages concerned – Ireland (IBTS) is obviously affected due to being a member of the EU, but also America, as the FDA, on their website, reference EU law to claim legitimacy for their blanket ban on gay and bisexual males donating blood.
Secondly, it is a matter of public record that this ban is highly controversial yet there is no mention of it on the FDA’s main page and I strongly believe that this needs to be rectified.
I feel therefore that it is unfair to simply delete these entries when they are based in fact. If the editor concerned had a problem with the way I presented these facts (such as choice of language etc) I would have appreciated him contacting me directly and outlining such concerns rather than deleting my additions in their entirety. I would also direct you to this editors talk page where a number of contributors have criticised his approach to editing and also the fact that on some topics (UK Premier David Cameron’s British nobility ancestors for example) he openly displays bias.
I don’t wish to get into an editing war so perhaps if I changed the way the additions are entered as opposed to the additions themselves being an issue, that might be acceptable? That’s something I can look at if it means the factual information remains in place.
I would also be grateful if you could clarify something that I have always been curious about concerning Wikipedia. There must be millions of individual pages so when I amended the FDA and IBTS pages for example, how did this come to the notice of this particular editor? Would it require him having an interest in this area or are editors automatically notified of amendments? PinkPolitico80 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)PinkPolitico80
Response on my talk page
edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Complaints about another editor
editI strongly encourage you to take things slowly and calmly, to discuss these matters on the article talk pages, and to avoid accusations of bad faith. Yes, the other editor in question can be a bit tough at times, but he is doing so in good faith to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia as he sees it. He knows the policies and guidelines here very well, has been in many battles, and it would not be advisable, in my opinion, for you to throw down the gauntlet. Discuss, debate, compromise, offer up the highest quality sources. That is the only path to success for you here, in my humble opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Feedback appreciated but I have already lodged a complaint about what I see as disruptive behaviour. I do think he is acting in bad faith and my suspicions have been strengthened by the many criticisms levelled at him by other editors on his talk page. It appears to me that he has a particular view concerning LGBT issues and this is motivating his actions more than anything else. PinkPolitico80 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)PinkPolitico80
- I've looked at your edit history and I don't see that you've posted at any administrative noticeboards. Please provide diffs documenting what you see as the other editor's "disruptive" behavior. Based on what I've seen so far, I think most experienced editors would view this matter as a routine content dispute rather than disruption. Please be aware that every experienced editor working on controversial topics will have many complaints over time. Accusations if bad faith are taken very seriously here, proof will be expected, and you should expect your own behavior in the dispute to come under intense scrutiny. Again, I advise caution if you hope to be a successful contributor here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)