User talk:AnotherSolipsist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No longer red.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AnotherSolipsist, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

If you're an admin, you probably don't need the welcome, but hey! A note, generally the use of direct quotations isn't standard; the use of a summary or general statement is usually better. I think that's part my opinion and part policy... WLU (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful link

This site makes formatting references really easy (particularly PubMed). Keep up the good work. — Scientizzle 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not copyright violation

Regading your deletion from the SH in Education article for copyright violation. Just FYI, the K12 website is the one violating the copyright, not the other way around. All their content is from Wikipedia, and they are not citing the source anywhere that I've been able to see. I've reverted your deletion of the content. Koala06 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Rind et al. (1998)

What are you doing? Cut it out. Herostratus (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three Revert Rule

Are you aware of the Three Revert Rule of Wikipedia? You should not play tennis with the article when your assertion is disputed. Instead, suggest a correction on the talk page before making any edits. Legitimus (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block notice

I've blocked you for tendentious pro-pedophile editing and trolling. For instance among many your edit built around the phrase "It's also inaccurate to define this as a "pro-pedophile belief," because anyone who's familiar with any of the research on child sexual abuse should subscribe to it" is not acceptable because it (1) is inflammatory and the functional equivilent of trolling and (2) supports editing which brings the Wikipedia project into disrepute.

You have been blocked for 72 hours for the time being. I am recommending this be expanded to a permanent block. You may appeal this block directly to the Arbitration Committee by email and in no other venue.

NOTICE TO ADMINISTRATORS: per precedent this block should not be overturned except by or at the direction of the ArbCom nor should appeals other than by email to the ArbCom be considered, email me if you have questions about this. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If believing that child sexual abuse isn't invariably harmful is reason enough to ban me, then being banned is a necessary consequence of having any expertise in this area. Of course, the occasional absence of harm doesn't mean CSA's not wrong: it is, and should remain the subject of severe criminal penalties. But this is because a prepubescent child is biologically incapable of giving informed consent. To continue to maintain that the real problem is some inherent harmfulness, despite the total lack of support for that proposition, only serves activists for its legalization.
You should consider reading David Finkelhor's paper on the ethics of sex between adults and children,[1], or Part I, chapter 10 of Ethics and Sex by Igor Primoratz. I can email you the text of the former, if you like, but I recommend the latter -- it spends more time on the fallacy of "inherent harmfulness" and establishes the consent argument much more soundly. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would unblock you, A.S., were I an administrator. It looks as though you're being blocked because you said something that someone personally does not like. This Is A Dangerous Precedent To Set! Right, Wrong, or Indifferent, making a statement of fact or opinion on a TALK page is virtually never a good reason for a block, let alone 72 hours! Hero, while he often uses sound judgement, is WAY off on this one. I'm not saying that you are right; I'm not saying that you're wrong. I am saying, though, that expressing a relevant opinion, especially based on scientific text (it appears), in the context of a discussion, is the entire point of Wikipedia. I am amazed and even scared that admins now block for comments they dislike. FWIW, I have appreciated your contributions and comments, even when I have not agreed with them or believed them to be too extreme in either direction. And your ood faith and civility far outshine at least a couple of your naysayers. I'm at a loss... The setting of this precedent... wow... • VigilancePrime • • • 02:39 (UTC) 28 Mar '08
That's quite the POV to push there, A.S. That as an absolute, an "expert" in this subscribes to a certain belief. Interesting twist on appealing to authority. I'm also curious as to the biological structure that controls consent. Achromatic (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but I'm becoming more and more and more disappointed with Wikipedia, or at least with its admins. This is such a horrible misjudgment that it's not even funny! For the last time, defending Wikipedia ideals, such as NPOV, is not advocation of pedophilia or the pro-pedophile movement. Seriously, admins should provide substantiating evidence before setting blocks on people. The reasoning provided above definitely does not warrant a block, and it's clear that Herostratus - whether intentionally or not - misrepresented AnotherSolipsist's editing (even the very edit to which the admin provided a diff). ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd that someone gets banned for not editing in a particular biased way. Would someone mind dropping me a note with the policy that makes not hating on paedophiles a banning offence? And could someone explain how not lying about child abuse would "bring Wikipedia into disrepute"? Just because a couple of hatesites claim that Wikipedia is paedo-friendly, one doesn't need to go screeching into a moral panic and insist on a particular POV. Although I think it's fair to say that AS has a POV, and is pushing it, I don't see why that should be considered in essence worse than pushing the opposite POV, even if the opposite is more acceptable in society. Grace Note (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I second the above. And could we avoid blocks like this, as the likelihood of WND/FOX etc picking up on it probably increases every time an admin gets jumpy over this issue. Lambton T/C 00:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have you considered?

A Request for Arbitration on Pro-pedophile Activism? Various forms of dispute resolution have been tried, it appears.

This request would include the core POV objections and suspicions regarding sockpuppets on the article. Lambton T/C 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "victimological" etc.

If you would like to participate in the discussion at Lambton's talkpage, please do so.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re warning

Ah, what are you thinking giving PetraSchelm a warning over normal give and take. In fact the use of "victimological" is generally enjoined, see User talk:Jovin Lambton#victimologists Herostratus (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC) OK that has been deleted but the same text is here. Herostratus (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AS was not commenting on the argument over "victimological", but Petra's tendency to poison other users with PPA. This operates regardless of the victimology clash. Lambton T/C 22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The warning you are referring to no longer appears on the page where it was first posted. I find it ominous, given the otherwise admirable openness and transparency of Wikipedia, that certain editors routinely delete, from their Talk page, comments left by others that ask them to examine their Wikipedia behavior -- especially their behavior in talking about or with other editors. This is not the first time that such material has been deleted by the person to whom the warning was sent. An exchange with "Grutness", c. 4/18, for example, is accessible only by going back and looking at both editor's Talk pages before each part of the exchange was deleted. The editor to whom Grutness sent a mild comment first moved Grutness's remarks back to his own Talk page, on the grounds that this would keep the discussion all neatly in one place. Grutness responded that he preferred a different approach to exchanges. He then left a notice that any future return of his remarks to his page would be deleted. The other editor did not comply with Grutness's request, on the grounds that anyone at all is free to edit anyone else's Talk page.
So now someone interested in how this editor has dealt with other editors will have a very difficult time reconstructing her behavior. (Or put more bluntly, people whose motives or positions she has called into question (undoubtely without realizing that she has done so, because she is editing in good faith) will not know the company they are in.
Deleting comments from one's Talk page that indicate how others have found one's Wikipedia behavior questionable is not a good way to behave on Wikipedia, nor a sign of willingness to learn the etiquette of this remarkably cooperative project. Impatient people who are sure they are "right" need to calm down and listen to suggestions, not delete them.
Or perhaps we all just have to get used to a new style of editing perhaps best described as by roaming rogues of rock-firm rectitude? I am sure everyone is behaving entirely within his/her individual (and occasionally unique) understandings of the words "good faith" and "consensus". But perhaps we could do still better? SocJan (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
To claim that it is Petra poisoning the atmosphere is ridiculous but tediously familiar, the argument of the fringe POV warrior. While the idea that a rude POV warrior like AS has the authority to to warn Petra is frankly ridiculous. Please get a better sense of what is going on here before commenting in such a mistaken way, SocJan. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you have an alternative theory. But considering the user's pattern of behaviour, and use of a critique of pedophile activism to bash me on my own page, I find the "helpful" attitude less than honest. By the way, I linked the discussion to my talk page immediately after clearing it. Lambton T/C 23:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
One would have hoped that a fringe POV user like AS would take notice of his 3 day block not follow it up by harassing a user who appears dedicated to NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's subjective. But I don't think that AS has been harassing anyone. er... Thanks. Lambton T/C 02:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, SqueakBox, does that mean then that, in your opinion, PetraSchelm - who has only been contributing to Wikipedia for 23 days - has more authority than AnotherSolipsist? Besides, what does authority have to do with anything here? If someone's conduct is found questionable, and there's reason to worry, it's courteous to remind the fellow editor of Wikipedia policies. There was nothing too outrageous in the warning in question. If the user disagrees with the critique, he or she can simply remove it from the Talk Page and remain as diligent as he or she was. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to comment on Petra on this page. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Deletionpedia Patrol

Hello, I wanted to let you know about the formation of this new effort to find deleted articles worthy of resurrection. You are welcome to join. Thanks, Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section within Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship

In regards to you recent deletion of a section started by you and the accompanying edit summery, what is supposed to happen in December? ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Elections for the Committee. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I am rooting for Boris right now. But of course, I am redneck, lol. None of you folk that winge on about how terrible the arbcom is even bothered to vote last year, and Homologeo appears not to have noticed until he felt resentful and entitled. And any potential sock should heed what happened to Vintagekits last year. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Squeak, I'm one of the folk who winge on about how terrible the arbcom is. Unfortunately, your statement above is untrue. I not only voted, I participated in the discussion process leading up to the election. As to anyone feeling entitled, it might be better to avoid such descriptions, as they can also be applied reflexively. I wouldn't have pegged you for a Tory, either. Naturally, I'd like to see "Red Ken" keep his seat, although, if I had my druthers, Brian Paddick would make an excellent Mayor.
Watching the current ArbCom approach to this topic makes me think of the Tom Robinson song about the Margaret Thatcher government, We Didn't Know (What was Going On):
The radio and papers said / The same thing every day / The government is wonderful / The country's doing great / And if someone else was suffering / They'd got themselves to blame / Don't say if you were in our shoes / You wouldn't do the same / And say // We didn't know what was going on...
All that aside, the actual reason I came here was to thank AnotherSolipsist for removing the disputed text. It takes a bigger person to deescalate a situation, particularly when they're right. The curent ArbCom activities affect articles that fall within the scope of this mentorship; These actions impact the project and should be discussed. This attempt to stifle debate suggests to me that those favoring ArbCom's current policy have no better way to counter its critics other than to silence them. It's a sad state of affairs. --SSBohio 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. When will the community ever rise up and demand in one glorious heroic voice that the political rights of the bazillion dispruptive fringe pov-pushing sockpuppets generated by the Newgon forum to free speech be respected?! When will the fascist repression of these poor oppressed sockpuppets and their meat accomplices by the evil Arbcom ever end?! Please reply at great length, frequently and at multiple locations, with suitable outrage. Or at least write a "disruptive fringe pov-pushing sockpuppet emancipation anthem" we can all sing together, to the tune of We Shall Overcome, to foment solidarity and stuff.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Who are you accusing of being a sockpuppet? Hopefully not AS, as they've been cleared of that accusation recently.
Your comments are sarcastic and rude, bordering on incivil. I'm glad I got to see your true colors early on. --SSBohio 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
AS was not cleared of being a sock lately, and as we all know well, including you, these socks use open proxies for the most part. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Since User:east718 reported that AS is not a sockpuppet,[2] what is your rationale for their still being suspected of sockpuppetry? --SSBohio 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And I was addressing the general sockpuppet problem --and forum coordination between socks and other users-- regarding the pov pushing in this area. Sorry if you found my sarcasm rude, that wasn't my intention--I was hoping to use humor to lighten the mood created by what I perceived as you taking things more than a little too seriously. It's the coordinated pov pushing that has been a problem, not the pov. I have yet to see you acknowledge that.-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. This issue (of ArbCom doing things in our names but in secret) bothers me a great deal. I can see where I could have let it get the best of me and missed your humorous intent.
  • POV pushing (from all sides) has been a problem in this topic area, and to me it's of no consequence whether the pushers in one direction are coordinated together, or whether they are pushing the same POV independently. I think all sides would agree that this is a topic that's very difficult to deal with neutrally, considering the strong feelings it engenders.
  • I want these articles to be as close to neutral as humanly possible, and I think that blocking and banning one faction doesn't make neutrality more attainable. When ArbCom started this procedure, they were blocking editors who were showing their "pedophile pride" on their userpages. Now, we're issuing bans in much less clear-cut cases. Power exercised in secret cannot easily be monitored or corrected. I think that there's cause to worry in that. --SSBohio 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox, I'm not sure how come you view me as resentful, or in what way you think I claim myself to be entitled to something. Please corroborate such "colorful" statement in the future. If you must know, I did not participate in voting or voicing my opinion in the last election because I did not consider myself qualified to act in that regard, and did not have sufficient time at my expense to catch up on all the pertinent issues. I did not know most of the candidates at that time, and still don't right now, thus it would be disingenuous and quite pointless of me to support or disapprove of individuals that I know little or nothing about. This is why I do not meddle in something that I'm not knowledgeable about. However, it is a basic right of every Wikipedian to expect admins to act in accordance with the community's core principles. Whenever violations or questionable conduct occur, it is the responsibility of editors - both regular users and admins - to look into the situation and to voice their concerns. Sorry if that seems somehow "resentful" to you. I'm sure you personally genuinely disapprove of people being resentful without reason. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't a case like abortion, where there is a 50-50 split IRL, and the friction generated by the two sides arguing on Wikipedia produces neutrality which improves articles. PPA is an extreme fringe view which has been massively over-represented, and wasted huge amounts of time of the editors countering the fringe pov-pushing. Having 3 editors v. 3 editors (+ an army of sockpuppets) keeps the articles skewed, not neutral. NPOV means the fringe view is represented as fringe, not as 50-50 equal to the majority view. Wikipedia doesn't need anymore PPAs, anymore 9/11 Truthers, etc. It needs less of them. Giving fringe pov-pushers a "platform for debate" by having DR on-wiki would also be a huge waste of everyone's time in the case of PPAs, I think, because it would just encourage them/give them more attention than is warranted. So I am in favor of Arbcom's approach. Did you see the PPA site that declared "persistent editing of Wikipedia" to be one of their "top ten" accomplishments?-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never thought that there was anything like a 50-50 split. In fact, I think that representing the pro-pedophile POV is easily as bad an idea as representing the anti-pedophile POV. I was involved in the protracted friction over the adult-child sex article. The only article I wanted to see was an article long on fact & short on opinion. Instead, the argument (predictably & regrettably) came down rto exactly how anti-pedo the article should be.
  • I believe in neutral facts. I believe in common sense. I don't believe in coatracks. An article that avoided all the charged language and factually described the effects on adult, child, and society of adult-child sex would sidestep the controversy about whose POV to adopt. Any reader could see from the facts that in almost every case (depending on culture & semantics) adults abuse children by having sex with them. No ref to that fact would be needed, because the article would never need to say it.
  • Think of it like the anti-smoking programs that post X-rays of cancer-riddled lungs. The fact of smoking's effect on people speaks for itself. It's a third way of approaching this controversy. Kick the opinions out of the factual articles, or add them sparingly to demonstrate important controversies. This is not an insurmountable problem, as long as we alter our approach. --SSBohio 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if you (Petra) or anyone else had any response to the article content concepts I brought up above? --SSBohio 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent editing of Wikipedia

You haven't responded to my question about the PPA website that lists "persistent editing of Wikipedia" as one of the top ten PPA accomplishments. Have you seen it?-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I had meant to include above that I'm not familiar with the website or the top ten list. I've previously looked at a couple of the PPA sites, particularly when referenced in discussion on-wiki. Do you know which site it is, or have a URL? --SSBohio 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Petra - it appears that you are getting your facts from the propagandist arm of a vigilante group - namely Perverted-Justice.
Anyway, since your question was to ask quite simply whether SSB had seen this site (to which you provide no link), no answer should hardly be a sin - especially to someone who is themselves, not addressing their opponents arguments. In fact, maybe the failure to provide an answer better reflects on the sheer irrelevance of the point you raise. All it can do is confuse the issue and lead to labelling and witch-hunting of probably unrelated editors here, whilst they should only be judged on the merits of their actions on Wikipedia. If not for your own relaying of vigilante propaganda, we could actually be having a logical debate here. Lambton T/C 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, I got my information from DL's blog on Newgon:http://newgon.com/blog/?p=46

"Daniel Says: January 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm 2. The top 5 victories of '07 - Webhosting - Persistant editing of Wikipedia - Von Erck humiliation - The success of AZU as a prominent hate group - Accounts not banned on YouTube" -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So what? One person says that there has been persistant editing. From the number of bans listed at WP:PAW, one can only conclude that there has been. Anyway, how do you know that he is not referring to unbiased editing? Activists may just seek the removal of biased and emotive terms. Some of the uses that I have seen hardly fall short of trenchcoats-candy-and-shagpile-lined-mobile-home type mischaracterisations. Lambton T/C 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The "one person" who says there is "persistent editing of Wikipedia" (read: disruptive editing)--and considers it a top 5 "victory" of his "movement"--is also the one person who is reputed to run the off-wiki forum on his website where coordinated attacks on articles are arranged, and also the one person who is likely responsible for a bazillion open-proxy sockpuppets. What I would like Ssbohio to get a glimpse of is that 'persistently editing Wikipedia' is the guy's "movement," and that even if we are "equipped to handle it," (which we're not, because very few people want to deal with this) we shoudn't have to--it's a Sisyphean waste of good-faith editor time. It's a waste of time for the editors who have to try to keep the articles neutral against a fringe, and it's a waste of time for the admins who have to block all the socks, and it's a waste of Arbcom's time to sift through all the emails generated by the trouble a fringe pov-pushing disruption campaign causes.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is just a lame association argument. Show me that there is a problem. Show me on-wiki evidence (not just blocks - show me the disruption). Otherwise, drop the Perverted-Justice sponsored scaremongering - it'll only heighten perceptions and lead to further off-wiki rabble rousing - just the kind of thing that arbcom are trying to stamp out. Lambton T/C 05:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the (totally irrelevant anyway) "off-wiki organising" or whatever, is virtually unfounded. Says Peejay, Says Daniel, Says one topic on his diminutive little forum. BlahBlahBlah. Lambton T/C 05:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem:

"Daniel Says: January 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm The top 5 victories of '07 - Persistant editing of Wikipedia" [3]-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. You didn't comprehend. But let's go along anyway. IF this little, outdated, alleged anecdote from a now banned Ed is a problem, what can we do about it? What will it enlighten us to that we don't already know about? On-wiki problems? Don't make me laugh - it's what you appear to spend day and night looking over.
No. What it will help us do is fabricate problems by crying "witch" as a last resort towards any civil editors who we dislike for their opinions on policy. These may just be pro-pedophile editors who can work well within WP:NPOV, but who cares? It only becomes a problem when some desperate POV warrior (or NPOV revisionist) wants a scapegoat or more leverage for their uncalled-for (most probably obsessively anti-pedophile) editorial prejudices. Lambton T/C 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem:

"Daniel Says: January 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm The top 5 victories of '07 - Persistant editing of Wikipedia" [4]-PetraSchelm (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting Déjà vu here. Ground control to Fiona Foster. Lambton T/C 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
PetraSchelm, is repeating the same statement over and over really supposed to make your case stronger? Best of luck with that. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, like the informers at Perverted-Justice, the user has a point that does not require explaining or any rebuttal to counterargument. Problem is, I just can't grasp that point. Maybe I should go to journalism school and learn how everything comes back to the pedophiles. Lambton T/C 06:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My concern after having read that blog post (which had a definite squick factor -- discussing the best ways to reach kids with their message? ummm...) is that it doesn't directly support the point being made. The blog post response from "Daniel" identifies "persistant editing of Wikipedia" as the #2 MAA(?) victory of 2007, and Wikipedia.org as the #4 MAA website of 2007. Nothing in that establishes an "off-wiki forum" ... "where coordinated attacks on articles are arranged" or being "responsible for a bazillion open-proxy sockpuppets."
  • It would be a much less arduous task to simply enforce the five pillars against any attempt to infuse opinion into these articles rather than try to . When one side (pro or anti) inserts its view into an article, it provides cover for the other side to introduce their view "for balance." An encyclopedic article on any one of the topics in this area is not a battleground for competing points of view, but a repository for facts.
  • It's also important to remember that actual edit warring, disruption, and sockpuppetry are already blockable offenses. What ArbCom has done here is to insert an element of opinion into what should be a cut & dried conduct determination. Effectively, any editor could find themselves permanently banned for unidentified and amorphous actions. The last one, for example, made userboxes referring to an attraction for young men & young women referred to as boys & girls. Right or wrong? Not important to this discussion.
  • If an editor can't predict what will get me banned, then there is a chilling effect on their contributions. If I don't know what is or isn't bannable, then I'll censor myself, but either by too much or too little. An opaque procedure enforcing a secret restriction is ineffective at deterring future wrongdoing. It's also a problem for ArbCom to act in our names without our being able to see what they're doing. If we're going to define people as pedophiles/pro-pedophile activists, we should do so publicly, both for reasons of fairness and to place their conduct in the public record. --SSBohio 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There aren't two sides, "pro and anti," there's a fringe and a majority, and there's been way too many of the fringe/not enough of the majority who are willing to suffer both the unpleasantness of the subject + the tenacious pov pushing, especially not for very long. The problem is tendentious fringe pov pushing, and it makes no difference what the fringe view is; if 9/11 Truthers or UFO enthusiasts considered "persistent editing of Wikipedia" one of their top 5 victories of 2007 it's unlikely the community would want to waste the good-faith time of volunteers running each and every one of them through DR separately; an Arbcom ruling to cover it would be better for the project. This is all I have to say about it to you anymore; I refer you back to the comments Morven made to you on his talkpage in lieu of further replies.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are two sides, as counting on my fingers has established.  :-) And the sides consist of a fringe POV and a majority POV, in this case a very large majority POV. They aren't mutually exclusive, and establishing one frame of reference doesn't require dismissing any others.
  • I raised several points in my response. I was wondering if I could get your views on more of them so we could continue the dialogue. --SSBohio 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I tghink comparing PPAs to 9/11 conspiracists is highly appropriate, this is part of a greater problem of people trying to affect wikipedia with their fringe POVs. Mainstream POV pushers are always less of a problem because NPOV demands the inclusion of mainstream views about a subject but fringe POV insertion is a huge and ongoing problem. Thanks, SqueakBox
  • I also agree with Petra's comparison. However, there's a vast gulf of difference between telling the mainstream view and writing the article from the mainstream view. An encyclopedia article should be factual, not driven by any "view."
  • WP:NPOV does call for the inclusion of the mainstream point-of-view (and to a limited extent any notable dissents), but that doesn't override the core values of the encyclopedia. The more we try to write these articles to reflect the mainstream POV, the less successful we are at combating POV pushing of all kinds. In the case of 9/11, the facts, as evidenced clearly, establish what happened, and what happened supports the mainstream view of 9/11 and refutes the minority view.
  • If we tell the facts, the reader has no problem discerning that sex between adults & kids is a bad thing -- it has harmful effects, it carries harsh punishments, and it's a deeply-ingrained taboo in many cultures. When we open the door by writing from the belief that it's a bad thing, rather than from the facts that establish the same conclusion, all the other POVs come through the door along with the majority one. --SSBohio 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do you report this?

One very hostile editor "PetraSchelm" has started to remove my comments (agreeing with you) and has alleged that I am someone's sock puppet. If this is vandalism, or something, how do I complain (I know that there are some forums, but what one?)? Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for the SSP board.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a new user who has never done you wrong. Stop being so coarse. Lambton T/C 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Coarse as Petra's comments might be (or not), the fact remains: Louisa apparently quacked like a duck. --SSBohio 03:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And that was the sixth sockpuppet just this week (plus a dozen Tor node IPs).-PetraSchelm (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may, in my mind, it doesn't justify taking a "guilty until proven innocent" approach whenever one of the townsfolk points at someone & shouts "witch." This case supports my contention: we didn't need to block this account because of the editor's beliefs, the policy violation was reason enough. --SSBohio 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The sock was blocked for sockpuppetry, not its "beliefs." (And I actually happen to agree with you that they should all be blocked for trolling/sockpuppetry/disruption, to make the point clear that it doesn't matter which fringe belief they are trolling/disrupting/socking on behalf of, and we don't have to listen to anymore hysterical persecution fantasies about how they were blocked for their "beliefs," when they blocked for trolling/pov-pushing/disruption/sockpuppetry, etc...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It is just asserted that this person is "Voice of Britain". There is no actual evidence, as usual. Lambton T/C 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there's evidence alright. Meanwhile, maybe you should revert/discourage/avoid the obvious daily sockpuppets instead of making comments like this, which might appear to some observers like trolling and editing in coordination with them: [5] I'm concerned for your reputation; I'd hate to see you unfairly "smeared by association" or something, when it's obvious you're just as concerned about the PPA sockpuppet problem as everyone else.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Poor attempt. Very poor attempt. Lambton T/C 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I take your point about not seeing the evidence, Lambton; However, sockpuppet checks can reveal personally identifying information, and, in the case of Louisa, since the editor confirming the sock is one I trust, I'm comfortable with the confirmation, barring evidence to the contrary. --SSBohio 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I would be as trusting as you are, had I seen the words "per checkuser" follow the banning summary, or even better, seen a checkuser link this IP of 2008 with what is surely a long-expired IP of 2007. Lambton T/C 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that (according to admins), many of them use proxies (illegal on their own, but no reason for blocking) is just another reason that leads me to suspect that the blocking of Petit LaDoumegue was a happy guess. Lambton T/C 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable sources

Why are you putting a link to ipce in the child pornography article, when you know this source has been discussed at great length for its unreliability? (It's a website, with no known author/editor, etc, as you know).-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ipce.info/#Ipce

And why are you reinserting the IPT reference, which is also unreliable? (Note Jack's edit summary): 05:36, 3 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Child pornography‎ (IPT-Forensics is not a reliable source; even if it were, the study was not controlled or peer-reviewed, and it describes pre-internet distribution)
Further information on the crackpot who ran IPT:


Underwager was forced to step down from the advisory board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and curtail his public activities after it emerged that he had given an interview :to Paidika, the Journal of Paedophilia in which he stated that the decriminalisation of paedophilia is a legitimate goal, and that the current focus on child sexual abuse was stirred up, in part, by “radical feminists” and lesbians jealous of the “intimacy and closeness” of sex between a man and a boy.[19] He later attributed the media controversy over his claims to the efforts of “radical feminists who have self-styled themselves as sex-abuse experts”.[20]-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources are not questionable for what they document. They are established organisations (one is of a certain ilk), and the material in them is often independent of the organisation, and author-attributed. Please quote the policy, and in context. Lambton T/C 01:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll be very interested to hear what Herostratus has to say about you putting ipce in particular into the child porn article (given that you were privy to all the discussions that it's barely a reliable source for the PPA article. And no, IPT isn't RS either, which you're aware of from the child sexual abuse article talkpage).-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot be aware of something that has nothing going for it. Even Ipce is a reliable source for material that originally had nothing to do with them. We are quoting that material and its authors, not the opinion of Ipce. Again, quote policy and quote it in context. Lambton T/C 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And whe Ipce is for whatever reason deemed unreliable, the RS becomes the original author and publisher. The extensive library at Ipce is extremely useful in these articles, especially when we are dealing with POV pushers who have a selective reading of literature in these areas. Lambton T/C 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As you are aware, self-published websites with unknown authorship are not RS, and ipce is so dubious there is doubt about whether it is even a permissible exception to RS as a fringe source in the PPA article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ipce is a RS for republished academic articles and IPCE POVs. There is nothing in V or RS policy to contradict that. Anyway, this is irrelevant. We do not need an online version, as long as we have the citation for the article. Lambton T/C 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ipce actually have some Finkelhor. If someone used Ipce as a source for him, we would rightly refuse to remove it, as we know that his material was originally published elsewhere. Lambton T/C 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, ipce is not a reliable source for anything, not even Finkelhor, because it's a self-published website with unknown authorship. We have no way of knowing if what is posted there is complete/unaltered. This has been discussed ad nauseum at the PPA article. It has also been discussed ad nauseum at the PPA article whether ipce can be used as ref for PPAs about themselves, under the exceptions for self-published/unreliable sources, and it's still unclear whether ipce is a permissible exception, because there is no known authorship of ipce, and that's a requirement for unreliable sources used as exceptions. Since this has been discussed at so much length, I do not understand why you repeatedly put ipce, a self-published ppa website, in the child porn article of all places.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this discussion would best be continued on the article talk page, with a link to here - or a copy of this discussion - since it involves source reliability and most topic editors don't watchlist this page. Since I'm typing a note here anyway, here's some info that may be helpful: Irish Times - newspaper article: ICPE = International Paedophile Child Emancipation Group, described in the newspaper as the successor organization of Paedophile Information Exchange. According to the report, both organizations were in part founded by Thomas O'Carroll, who has been convicted of distributing child pornography. That is relevant to the reliability of the source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NCH quote; text reinserted by sockpuppet

And why are you reinserting, without dicussion, a chunk of text which I removed on April 20th and posted discussion about, which was then reinserted by a sockpuppet without discussion on April 28th and re-removed?-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing (sourced?) material before consensus is not normal. Lambton T/C 01:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And what are you talking about? You have both now reinserted a chunk of text that was removed, with discusssion, and then reinserted by a sockpuppet--and neither of you has replied to the discussion. You're edit warring to back up a sockpuppet.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is sourced "question mark" it should certainly be removed, such as some of the stuff AS added and I then removed tonight as sticking a ref tag onto an unreliable source does not make that source reliable, and using a PPA site on the child porn article is really not acceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No hard feelings

For you! --PetraSchelm Your userpage is so neato. I'm curious--which other "Wikia" do you edit/at which one are you an admin?

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jack Hensley.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack Hensley.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support...

...on the Pedophilia article. You, another editor, and me have reverted that article to it's true definition. How one cannot know what pedophilia is and work on that article, I do not know. But it should be correct, regardless. And mentioning the dictionary? How off is that? It doesn't even mention that teenagers can be pedophiles. If a 17-year-old sexually prefers 10-year-olds, that's a pedophile. It doesn't matter if that 10-year-old has just hit puberty. Why? Because that 10-year-old still looks 10. Unlike a 17-year-old, who looks more adult-like and can easily pass for adult.

If I could edit fully right now (meaning...if I had a computer at this time), I'd help more. Just know that I'll continue to support you or any editor correcting the pedophilia definition to preferential. The fact is...there are sources that say that it is, and having that article not be truthful in its first mention about the definition of pedophilia due to some simple definition which doesn't even specify is ridiculous. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent edit warring against consensus without discussion

  • That's three articles now, where you are making repeated reverts without discussion (two of them after outside input was sought and consensus was not in your favor):
  • Consensus was 4 to 2 after discussion here: [6], and yet you have reverted twice without any discussion today.
  • Consensus was in favor of a a few sentences about Rind here:[7], and yet you reverted repeatedly to insert the whole three paragraphs, without discussion (and the article is now protected).
  • You ignored discussion above about your repeated edits to the child pornography article (inserting the OR section about sex offense rate; and the two unreliable sources). -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And you have continued to revert another editor without talkpage discussion at Hystero-epilepsy since I posted this message.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
4:3, now I commented. J*Lambton T/C 21:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chu

Hi,

Here you discuss Chu and criticisms of chu. The article is spread around to a lot of page dealing with memory, DID, RMT and other speculative categories. Do you have an electronic copy of Chu and/or the criticisms? I'm starting to get concerned about the amout of weight and possible OR issues when it's used on an entire constelation of pages. I suspect it's either not that general being over-stretched. Thanks, WLU (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I have a couple other full-text versions I could e-mail you like, McNally 2007 and 2004 (Dispelling Confusion About Traumatic Dissociative Amnesia, The Science and Folklore of Traumatic Amnesia) and Piper, Pope and Borowiecki 2000 (Custer's Last Stand: Brown, Scheflin and Whitfield's last attempt to salvage dissociative amnesia) straight from Harry Pope. The DID page also has the full-text second version of Piper's review, I think cited in the lead. Had 'em for a while, never got around to reading and updating. WLU (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Also a note about Dissociation (psychology) - I rarely see p values in articles, and make a point of removing them and using prose when I do. As a general encyclopedia, p values aren't usually familiar to many lay readers, and generally prose is adequate to describe in my experience. I feel like I've said this before, possibly even to you (the use of p values is very rare, so it's possible I've been a nag about this before). Ditto for Author, Year citations, which I usually consider adequate if a footnote is present. Would you object to me adjusting these issues? I may, or may not, depending on if I remember and make the time. Which is probably even money. The guidelines on summary style and tone might have something official and/or specific but I'm sure. WLU (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PPA

Reverting Petra is no good. Although Petra modified the article and its sources without discussion (something the user is all too ready to condemn in others), it will just get put back by users such as SqueakBox (with the casualty of a 3RR ban if needed). We should report the user's behaviour and press ahead with (and unite) the lists that we started on talk. J*Lambton T/C 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Petra just nulled the undo (to your version) function, using your suggestions as an excuse! J*Lambton T/C 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion wanted

Here: [8]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: it's an honest invitation/honest attempt to summarize-improve ppa points for the article. You could try collaborating, you won't melt, and we'll still be "frenemies," I promise. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll comment later. My browser is acting unkindly. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved contributions

OK, better than nothng. Googie man (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK, I may be wrong

"Anti-intellectualism hinders our understanding of child sexual abuse, and if we don't even know what CSA really is, prevention and better treatment is impossible."

In all seriousness, I'm quite intrigued by your arguments here, and if you feel so inclined, I ask you to consider this an intellectual exercise. Consider me an extreme, yet open-minded, skeptic of what you have to say. Keep in mind, I have more of an intellectual and academic understanding of CSA and pedophilia than you think. HOwever, when you say prevention is best treatment, then that's when I begin to think I may be wrong about my ideas.

"I'm not a paedophile, and I believe that paedophilia is an illness and adult-child sex is an enormity. That I have to clarify that merely for my commitment to accuracy is tragic."

And you may be right. Please help me understand. Googie man (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An apology to you

AnotherSolipsist, I owe you an apology and I hope you will accept it. Please accept my apology and complete retraction for any accusation or suggestion of wrongdoing on your part. I hope we can put this aside, and continue this discussion in the spirit of mutual respect and understanding. I hope you will please still consider helping me understand the details of your beliefs. Best regards, Googie Man.

[edit] Vandals

I just posted an explanation of why I thought that the edits were just that, though you may well be right as I would guess that it was not maliciousness but ignorance that drove him to make a mess of the refs (by the way, I have no reason to believe that "Petra" is female). Haiduc (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Entire study abstract"

That's not an abstract--that's a quote from within the study. If there is an abstract, I haven't read it, I've only read the study. Maybe you should, as well. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dwendes

Hi, thanks for visiting my page. I replied with a long but concise answer there[9]. I hope that I summarily replied to your interest. Thanks. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vacation

I don't know about you, but editing these sexuality articles can get pretty stressful. I took a week off from editing them, took all of them out of my watchlist, and avoiding reading them altogether. It was pretty refreshing, you might want to give it a try.Legitimus (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not now then. But, I could as easily have feared I would return to find "Pedophilia is a perfectly legitimate sexual orientation and adults having intercourse with 4 year olds never was or ever will be in the slightest way harmful no matter the circumstances." I'd like to think all of us, at our core, are on the same side. But we each fear something different, some misunderstanding or injustice. Legitimus (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canvasing

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Thanks, SqueakBox 21:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times have you been warned about canvassing? 5? 6? As a result of your canvassing in this way you make your already illegitimate Rfc a joke. Well done. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Zero, actually. I didn't violate WP:CANVASS: I contacted the most recent uninvolved editors of Pedophilia and Talk:Pedophilia. I have no way of knowing what stance they'll take. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You are in danger of violating 3RR, please consider desisting. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wait for the RCu to pan out, if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about, indeed I hope you are innocent as Roman was soliciting minors. My wife does not want me to go back out to our gran carnival so I am stuck here for the moment. Talking of vacations I am hoping to come to Germany soon though it would be a business trip. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the diff, and Roman Czyborra asked a 14 yr old girl for a picture. I really fear for someone who has a mind so active that he reads sexual solicitation into such a behaviour without question. J-Lambton T/C 07:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Pushing

He's at it over on the ped article again. The latest idea is to reject the agreed upon "orientation" and primarily define it as a disorder, even though that disorder requires a level of distress that is not inherent to any common or etymo/dictionary definition of pedophilia. J-Lambton T/C 06:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've used up all my reverts on reverting Petra's uncalled for removal of Lautmann as a source. That was just there to make an example of diversity in the field. She really wants that 95% factoid that all the child saver groups use, to lead the section on prevalence in the criminal population, which is bizarre, considering consensus among those who study that field. J-Lambton T/C 07:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You make it sound like reverting is a privilege, Lambton. let me remind you it is not and I would advise you not to mkae such inflammatory comments as thinking you have the right to revert will not go down so well in certain quarters, especialy from an editor already on probation for making us all feel intimidated with legal threats. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unpublished dissertations

While they may be used where appropriate, they are definitely not superior to medical dictionaries for the lead of an article (nor was that discussed, let alone "agreed upon by four editors"). Your misrepresentations of consensus to push your pov with sketchy sources are tiresome. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertations are as or more reliable than peer-reviewed studies, and, as they are written by individuals specializing on the subject defined therein, better than medical dictionaries. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No, unpublished doctoral dissertations may be used, but they are iffy as RS, and in no way preferable to a medical dictionary for the defintion of a term in the lead of an article. This is so obvious it doesn't even need to be argued/your tendentious editing is clearly problemmatic. You were better for a while; I would drop it if I were you, as it will make you look quite bad when/if it gets to a civil pov pushing complaint. You're wasting the time of GF editors for whatever fun it is you get out of being argumentative/disruptive for the sake of it. I will revert, ignore, and add it to the list of diffs if you persist. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You do know that "for your own good" arguments are extremely likely to make you look disingenuous. You know, like the one that poisoned me as some kind of pedophile advocate? I think that you should avoid it - for your own good. J-Lambton T/C 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#U.S._doctoral_dissertations_and_medical_dictionaries --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it too--you cannot use an unpublished doctoral disseration as a substitite for a medical dictionary to define a term in the lead of an article. You have a general problem with interpreting "can be used" as license to use in any circumstance that suits you. Post on the RS board if you have time to waste, I'm just going to revert you--notice the discussion on the article talkpage (where your lie about consensus is already being addressed). -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] adding another par

Hi,

thanks for adding the paragraph on hypoxia.

I would like to add Dr Seeman's findings to Causes of Schizophrenia thanks.

How do I add a reference properly?

thanks Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] “Sneaky vandalism” are you serious?

“On” Easter is better than “in” Easter. Do you disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.222.248 (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive Distortions

Thanks for upgrading the Pedophilia article. Considering their confounding subjectivity, and expert counter arguments, the idea that these theories are an unchallenged, accepted psychological theory was extremely dubious. forestPIG 17:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Please see here for a discussiong regarding your edits. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)