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.
NewLabourNewLies11:19, 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.
NewLabourNewLies11:36, 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.
NewLabourNewLies11:57, 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 --
Puellanivis19:43, 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. --
AliceJMarkham12:07, 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.
NewLabourNewLies12:14, 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.
NewLabourNewLies12:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)reply