Hello, Crice88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hello, Crice88. With regard to this edit you made, I delinked those words oxytocin and prolactin; I did this because the words are already linked in that section. Per WP:OVERLINKING, a Wikilink should generally only appear once in an article; however, there are exceptions. Read WP:OVERLINKING to see what qualifies as overlinking on Wikipedia and what the exceptions are. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22, Thanks for the heads up concerning the edits I made on the Refractory period (sex) article on [09:59, November 16, 2013]. I am aware of Wikipedia's Policy on Overlinking and Underlinking, the reason I added the links to oxytocin and prolactin was to aid in the understanding of the article, as WP:UNDERLINK states:

An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked that are needed to aid understanding of the article. In general, links should be created to:

• relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
• articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background".
• articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary could be used.
• proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers.

While I was reading the article, I did notice that the words oxytocin and prolactin were linked in the beginning of the article, but they were not linked later on (and it was later on in the article that I needed to click on those terms to better understand the article). So, while I understand your point on WP:OVERLINK, I think linking things more than once is justified under WP:UNDERLINK because linking the words oxytocin and prolactin (even if they're linked more than once) aids in the understanding of the article, because oxytocin and prolactin are technical terms. It's a lot easier to click on a link for oxytocin and prolactin whenever a question arises rather than going back to the top of the page to find the original link. I think it was ok to add in these links because they were helpful. I think helping the readers is probably more important than following some of these rules word for word. If Wikipedia isn't helpful, then people won't use it, and if people won't use Wikipedia, then all our editing becomes rather pointless. Does that make sense? Wikipedia talks a little bit about this on their Policies and Guidelines article. Also, Wikipedia's Ignoring all Rules – A Beginner's Guide even says that "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." I'm still sort of new to editing, so I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or something, I just know that it was difficult for me to get motivated to edit stuff until I saw articles that encouraged breaking rules when its done in the right spirit and for the right reasons. Crice88 (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again on my talk page. If you reply there again, that is where any future replies about this matter from me will take place. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Gabriel's Sex/Gender section on Gabriel talk page for more information. Crice88 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to repeat and amplify what I said on Talk:Gabriel because I know it's going to get drowned there. Your behavior on the talk page and in the article is becoming increasingly disruptive, obstructive, and meets the criteria of WP:IDHT quite handily. Your appeal to WP:IAR is particularly disturbing and ominous. So if you continue operating against consensus there, I will be forced to request sanctions from administrators to preserve the integrity of this and other articles. I and the other editors involved would appreciate it if you slow down, take a few deep breaths, and consider our opinions. I would also make the friendly suggestion that you limit yourself to short sentences and paragraphs, especially on the talk page; all of us have limited time to devote to Wikipedia as a volunteer activity, and our time is not well served by WP:Walls of text that we have to comb through in order to find some meaning within. Thank you very much for your consideration. Elizium23 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Reinserting text into an article in the face of three editors who are telling you that you're POV-pushing and misinterpreting WP policy is not a way to advance Wikipedia. Arguments on Talk pages are not evaluated based on quantity of text, either. --Macrakis (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not blur the lines between Article Content and User Conduct. In general, it is disruptive to Wikipedia, and personally it discourages people like myself who want to follow the rules of Wikipedia in order to both add new information to and improve the quality of existing Wikipedia content from contributing further. Threatening me with administrator actions when you simply do not seem to agree with Wikipedia editing policies is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
• I would ask that you please keep all conversations related to Gabriel's Sex/Gender (i.e. a dispute over article content) under the section on the Gabriel talk page. Having the same discussion on numerous different talk pages is counter productive. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.
• I will not discuss existing disputes over article content on multiple talk pages, especially user talk pages.
• In response to user conduct, my use of the phrase "pursuant to” in the context of discussing and interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines does not constitute nor equate to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Likewise, taking the necessary time to explaining and discuss our disagree over article content does not constitute nor equate to Wikipedia:Wall of text. The process of dispute resolution requires adequate discussion concerning our different interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You’ve accused me of breaking all sorts of policies and guidelines but you’ve consistently failed to take the time to discuss and explain your interpretations. Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning dispute resolution clearly state the necessity of proper discussion—as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not black and white. Disputes occur when two or more users have different interpretations over these policies and guidelines. Effective dispute resolution requires actual discussion, not threats and not just a bunch of unfounded and unsupported accusations. You need to engage in discussion, Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced and unverified content. Crice88 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid this, go back to all your Noticeboard postings and delete them for the moment. Once the RFC has been closed I would then suggest the DRN board as the best suggestion...however, it is not a formal board. I think you may bee seeking something more formal. For that I would suggest the next best step (after the RFC closes....or you close or withdraw it) to be the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. However, I cannot stress enough that before you do that or the less formal DR/N board that you have all your ducks in a row. Good luck and happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Miller, I went ahead and closed out each of the discussions on the notice boards. I didn't realize what I was doing qualified as campaigning so I'll definitely keep that in mind in the future. Thank you again for your guidance. I really appreciate all your help. Crice88 (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigning and/or canvassing is such an over argued point in my opinion....but many editors do stick to it strictly. For your own argument, I think you made the best choice as even DR/N will not accept a request while even the RFC or other noticeboard discussions are open and many editors can be very critical of others who they perceive to be campaigning or canvassing. See the behavioral guideline: Wikipedia:Canvassing for more details.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more accurate description of what you did (inadvertently) was actually called WP:FORUMSHOPing. But it does fall under the category of "canvassing" except that this is actually a more serious violation of policy, not just a guideline.. I have updated the header here to be more accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am off to bed. It's nearly 5 am in California and I think I am ready for unconsciousness. But I felt obligated to mention that Wikipedia does not punish editors for their contributions. What we normally do (admin that is, of which I am not one) is to intervene when needed to take action in order to prevent further disruption. No such intervention is punitive, just preventative. Since you took time to undo your actions, I do not believe you have anything to worry about and wanted to make sure you knew I was trying to help you, and not "Wiki-lawyer" you into a corner. Should you need any further advice or suggestions, feel free to ask on my talk page. I am always willing to lend a helping hand if I can.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I realized you were trying to help early on. I really appreciate it too, I am new to the editing/contributing role, and I'm obviously not perfect, but I felt like I needed to do something to try and get some other comments. The RfC wasn't as helpful as I had hoped. Thanks again for taking the time to help clarify where I goofed up. Have a nice night (or rest). I should probably do the same, although here in Illinois its 7am. Crice88 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Gabriel. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to accomplish with this very aggressive stance on my Talk page and on the Talk:Gabriel page?

We try to be collegial and civil here at WP. You have three experienced editors (myself (9 years, 24k edits), Elizium23 (6 years, 24k edits), and Ymblanter (2 years, 37k edits)) judging that:

• your sources aren't reliable (and I see that another uninvolved editor, Someguy1221 (7 years, 35k edits) agrees)
• that your appeals to policy are inappropriate (WP:COI, really? do you think some of us are being paid by the Catholic church or something?)
• that you're misinterpreting NPOV (in particular, you're not taking into account the undue weight issue)
• that you need to be more concise on Talk
• etc.

Yet, instead of looking for working with us to improve the article, you are confrontational. Why not take our feedback about the quality of the sources and try to find better sources, for example?

Of course it is possible for experienced editors (even three of them) to be wrong. But edit-warring by re-inserting the same material in the face of disagreement by three experienced editors is hardly seeking consensus. And forum shopping by pushing the dispute into three forums simultaneously is just going to annoy people (forgetting about the policy violation). --Macrakis (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All my best to you in 2014. I still remember when I got a "thank" notification from you about one of my edits. It is too easy to be negative in Wikipedia. Thanks for the positive feedback. —Telpardec  TALK  06:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Political divisions of the United States 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:

• plenary powers under the [[territorial clause]] of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution).<ref name=USC-ART4SEC3></ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]