User talk:DanB DanD/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, DanB DanD/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - GilliamJF 02:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klietmann re-direct

Your re-direct has caused some serious problems with the Wolfgang Klietmann article. Michael 05:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. I fixed it. Somehow, you had made a re-direct, as did someone else, so they looped to each other's re-directs. I managed to go back to the original version and tidied it up. Michael 05:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. I think you covered it pretty well, though I disagree with the prioritizing. It seems to me that uses which are exclusive should take precedence over uses which are secondary synonyms for more accepted terms. Thus its academic use is not "third." Also you forgot the use of "pederasty" as a synonym for anal sex with either men or women, from which the Italians derived the amusing "pederastia su donne", as well as the positive use which might have been employed by Wilde, Gide and the like. But there is a limit to what can be done in a couple of lines. Regards, Haiduc 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Hi, I notice you have tagged a couple of articles for speedy deletion as "non-notable, advertising". This is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the specific tags such as {{db-bio}} when marking articles for speedy deletion. Thanks, Gwernol 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pedophilia and sexual orientation

If you review the paraphilia subsection of sexual orientation I am confident that you will see why your revert justification is nonsensical. It states only that gender-preference orthogonality is untrue of pedophilia, not that its consideration as an orientation is inappropriate.

[edit] Re: Rachel dubuc

Actually no, I it was somebody else who initially deleted the article. I just noticed the article's creation on Vandal Fighter, and deleted it again. - Mike Rosoft 20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A PAW extended in welcome

Hi Dan! Welcome to WP:PAW, I look forward to working with you! Herostratus 04:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, hi back. Nice work on the CSA intro. DanB DanD 04:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYT article

You may be interested in this New York Times article [1].

  • In the pedophiles’ world view, not all sexual abuse is abuse. There is widespread condemnation and hatred of adults who engage in forcible rape of children. But otherwise, acts of molestation are often celebrated as demonstrations of love.
  • In essence, the groups deem potentially injurious acts and beliefs harmless. That is accomplished in part by denying that a victim is injured, condemning critics and appealing to higher loyalties — in this case, an ostensible struggle for the sexual freedom of children. Pedophiles see themselves as part of a social movement to gain acceptance of their attractions. The effort has a number of tenets: that pedophiles are beneficial to minors, that children are psychologically capable of consenting and that therapists manipulate the young into believing they are harmed by such encounters.

Registration is free if they require it. -Will Beback 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Not news to anyone on Wiki! To me the co-opting of the language of "sexual liberation" is particularly rankling.
DanB†DanD 22:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan law

Hi Dan, just to clarify: sexual penetration of a person aged 13-15 in Michigan is third degree CSC, not fourth, and there is no exception for a person close in age or even the same age. Fourth degree CSC involves only non-penetrative sexual touching. St. Jimmy 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

le scandale!

[edit] ephebophilia

Hi - thanks for reverting Fiction article title etc. Can you do the film one too, I don't know how to edit a title. Tony 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Tony

Hi. You just click the "Move" tag and it prompts you for the new title. It automatically creates a redirect page from the old title. DanB†DanD 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erostratus

Nope. Is it related to Herostratus?

  • Ah, probably the Satre story then, which is based on me. Herostratus 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

Thank you for agreeing with me that the Examples bit you just removed was POV. The guy who put it in doesn't appear to see this, and you missed my lengthy talk page sermon on it. I'm hoping this disagreement won't escalate further now. --84.71.118.198 22:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It was OR as much as NPOV.
As principles, I suppose the two overlap somewhat... OR is perhaps inherently non-NPOV...--84.71.118.198 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child pornography section blanking vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Qwasty 02:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Qwasty 03:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
For posterity: the above accusation is of course frivolous. DanB†DanD 02:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was frivolous. You were blanking the entire section with no discussion. At least now, after the "accusation", I have a dialog open with you on the Child pornography talk page. Further discussion should go there. Qwasty 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --TeaDrinker 03:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize I was skating close to 3RR. But what do I do when material is plainly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but the author keeps reinserting it? Jumping to mediation seems silly for such a cut-and-dried case. DanB†DanD 03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The best thing to do is send it over to WP:AN/3RR which I have already done. Don't worry too much if the article is not ideal for the moment, it will be fixed. If we didn't give up at some point and let an admin deal with it, we'd all be here all night... --TeaDrinker 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Qwasty 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu, hon! It sure would suck to get blocked from editing Wikipedia! DanB†DanD 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The notice board is not a proper venue for personal comments

Dan, I am happy to discuss anything you like almost anywhere you like, but please leave the notice board as a notice board for current, ongoing items. Your response to a six month old debate yesterday, and your personal aside to me just now on the notice board are blocking may attempts to let interested people know that there is an ongoing dispute at the Lion page. As for meddling in political matters, you are probably right, I need to stick to academic material. Regards, Haiduc 12:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I absolutely agree. Your "gay militant" slur surprised me very much. DanB†DanD 01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CP "examples" section revert-o-rama

Exactly the same thing is happening at the CP article as when you first got involved - complete with accusations of "vandalism." Is there a next step? DanB†DanD 20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the first step should be a request for comment about the article. Another option is informal mediation; check out resolving disputes and we can figure out the best approach. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstarred!

Boywiki... ye gods. What the heck are they putting in the water these days...  :/ Anyway this is for you:

The Original Barnstar
Awarded to to DanB DanD for countering vandalism, rolling back the tides of bias and ignorance, and general all-round good work, and in some of the most difficult subjects, at that. Herostratus 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mea maxima culpa

I take upon myself the responsibility for any misunderstanding. Cut to the chase: are you for or against titling the article "Adult-minor erotic relations in fiction"? Haiduc 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I think that title has problems of its own--"minor" is a legal term that will be foreign to a lot of the material, and "erotic" is a mischaracterization of many of the stories of abuse. That article's title has been a bone of contention for ages, but no one has yet come up with a solution everyone likes. I'm inclined to defer to Tony on the whole, as he's the one who done the work of putting it together.
Let's see what Tony has to say. Just because something is not erotic to you or me does not mean that it is not erotic to the agent, else why would he do it? Can something be sexual and yet not be erotic? Haiduc 03:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course, often.


[edit] Anti-feminism

Dan this entire article is a collection of weasel-worded opinions. There are no clear definitions here, no reference texts, and no text sources for the concept itself. Please be fairminded when you revert content.

(anonymous)