User talk:PetraSchelm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This user is female. |
 |
This user is a Virgo. |
 |
This user prefers brewing coffee by a French press. |
 |
This user is Waiting for Godot, who will surely be arriving on June 10. |
Welcome!
Hello, PetraSchelm, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] formatting quotes & sources on talk pages
Hi again - another hopefully helpful hint...
When you include quotes in discussions, either from sources, or to present sections from the articles for discussions, it can be helpful to set them apart using wikimarkup for readability.
You can use:
- bullet points, or
<blockquote>the blockquote pair of tags</blockquote>, ...
so it looks like this text inside these blockquote tags
or often it can help to use
-
- extra indentation and italics
Whichever method you prefer, it's good to do something graphic because otherwise it can be hard for other editors to tell which parts of your new paragraphs are quotes and which are original writing.
It's also good to use markup to separate
-
the new text for the article that you are proposing...
...from the discussion about that content on the talk page.
Just some ideas. For more info, check out Help:Wikitext examples
--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! You are such a good mentor to have. I will try to figure all that out and make it into my standard practice.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to help. With the error that just happened where all the type got smaller, that was because the markup tags come in pairs. You need to close it like with reference tags. See above where I placed the blockquote example. If you don't close the tag (the one with the / at the start ... then it says open for the rest of the page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, the little / on the second blockquote--I saw that as soon as you fixed it. :-) Thank you.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- By the way, I'll be offline for a while, so I won't be able to reply right away if there's another glitch. You can always get help on stuff like that at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) - someone usually answers quickly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mayo Clinic Ref in Child Pornography
Would you be able to dig that one up? John Nevard (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I have to say, with a lot of the articles I keep up on the only way to keep track is to look at the entire block of edits since mine or a trusted editor. John Nevard (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. You seem to be doing a very good job of it. It's amazing what a solid stance on this rather important resource can do, when the tide finally turns on an article. John Nevard (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good will
~~~ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Re. Virgin Killer, I am 100% opposed to your point of view. However, I salute your zeal, and extend the hand of friendship. Productive debate. great stuff.-- Chzz ► 02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] formatting ...
Hi -- the cause of the display problem in your recent talkpage note is that there is a blank space at the beginning of the line. That causes the formatting not to wrap properly and is usually used for stuff like computer code display examples. When you remove the blank space, the formatting will go back to normal. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, tks. I am webtard. :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nudity and children
I have reverted your edit to Nudity and children. Please don't remove content without prior discussion and consensus. Corvus cornixtalk 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's plenty of consensus for that redirect and plenty of prior discussion, in the form of an AfD. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your Edits to Pro-pedophile activism
You have been cautioned many times not to introduce significant controversial edits to contentious articles without seeking and gaining consensus first. Since unprotection of "Pro-pedophile activism," you have chosen to disregard this advice, and have unilaterally altered almost the entire piece, in some places beyond recognition. In my opinion, this was a very disrespectful thing to do, as it diminishes the countless hours of work and effort many editors contributed to make the article what it recently was. There is no excuse for altering the text in the way you did, considering that unprotection was carried out on the assumption that editors would discuss controversial changes first and foremost, and that gradual editing would be the approach to be taken. After your edits, there is no easy or accessible way to address incremental changes carried out by you, since you have altered so much information and so many sections that it is very difficult to assess or undo any particular edit. This was not being bold, but instead taking unilateral action in a very disrespectful manner. For this conduct, you have been mentioned in a related section on east718's Talk Page. When I have more time, I'll see if there's any way to actually deal with the difficult situation you have placed all the contributing editors of this article. Please be more conscientious of others in the future. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Every single change was discussed on the talkpage--some of the discussion has been posted for weeks. I would say I greatly improved the article, and that the improvements were long needed. There is no excuse for altering the text in the way you did borders on personal attack and is definitely assuming bad faith. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- No it doesn't. A personal attack is one that describes the person rather than the edits. This was a pretty non-personal attack. You say you greatly improved the article :) I think most people would say that about their own edits. The question is, does everyone else agree with you? It appears not, and looking at the history of that article, I'd say this was very excessive and questionable editing, considering the fact that it was just unprotected. This is the wrong way to edit following unprotection. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, actually, of the two people who edit that article, one agrees with me and one doesn't. That's Wikipedia for you. Meanwhile, since you don't edit that article and were involved in a dumb dispute with me earlier tonight about merging nudity and children into nudity which you lost, be on notice that I will delete your further comments. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It's hard to assume good faith when an editor disregards the conditions upon which unprotection has been carried out in a contentious article, and when he or she knows that his or her conduct is almost guaranteed to start an edit war or at least cause major discontent for other editors. This said, I'm choosing not to revert to the page that was under protection because some of your edits may be valid (but it's hard to tell which, considering that you revamped pretty much the entire article) and another editor contributed constructive non-controversial changes. Thus, please view my commentary in the light of your own conduct. Besides, this was an informative observation and critique of your recent editing behavior, and in no way a personal attack. Sorry if you regard it as one, but critiques are indeed useful for improving editing skills and reigning in disruption on Wikipedia. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think you don't like the changes for pov reasons--but that article seriously needed to be revamped, and all the changes were discussed. I notice you didn't reply much to posted discussion. Stonewalling? -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Your recent work
- Love lasts forever I think sums it up for me. Keep going. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PPA page title
Hi PetraSchelm - I thought you might be interested in posting a comment about this suggestion --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Petra, thank you so much for your support during my little "melt-down". I think we both have common intentions - objective information on Wikipedia, as free of bias as possible. Best regards, Googie man (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eli Langer
Did a bunch of work on this. Think it's at the point where we can drop the tags. Mattnad (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A veiled threat to my safety - a new low by Jovin Lambton?
See here [1] Any help would be appreciated.
[edit] Carnival
Its the grand carnival here today so I am off out to have some fun, please keep your good eyes peeled. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have fun! I'll be on the job off and on till later tonight. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lambton
Thanks for what you said on my talk page, but I put Lambton's edit back in. What gives with him? Would you mind putting in a word to User:Gwernol so he'll know I'm not insane, and that Lambton won't leave me alone? Thanks!! Googie man (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, based on my experience with Lambton, he is only posting on your talkpage in the hopes of upsetting you. Just ignore him; others are watching your talkpage and will revert him for you. If necessary, I will mention o Gwernol that after she advised disengagement, Jovin continually bothered you. No worries and happy editing. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please do mention this to Gwernol, I would appreciate the support. Thanks, Googie man (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lambton/Googie Man
I have no intention of involving myself further in that particular mess. Googie man has made it quite plain that he is unable to act in a civil and constructive manner. He asked for my advice, when I gave it to him I was met with a barrage of threats and insults. So no, I will not be wading into that morass to help him. Gwernol 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I can understand your feelings. Thnaks for reply.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
I appreciate the attempt. I think you may notice a trend - anyone who is respectful to me, is treated in kind. Anyone who doesn't, well, is also treated in kind, but I give it back harder. Just the way I am. Keep up the great work - again I appreciate your kind words of encouragement. Best, Googie man (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. Just shun/ignore/avoid Lambton and it will all soon be in the past. (He should be blocked any minute now for abusive sockpuppetry and all the rest of his disruption anyway, and then we will have a bit more peace). -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Thanks. I have tweaked it slightly, take a look. I take great pride in the work I do in the pedophile articles. I saw Jovin complaining on AN about my addition re the CSA being compounded millions of times in CP, which I found a bit odd as I was basing my millions figure on the estimated number of people who have seen CP on the net (which runs into millions in the UK so I read on BBC News recently), CP is just worse than CSA because it compounds the trauma, and violates that privacy is a vital part of sexuality. So I think I want to try and focus my attention on CP as an article to develop and leave PPA to others. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Pedophilia
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
[edit] AN/I
Please see this thread on AN/I that regards you. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Most Special of Barnstars
 |
The Special Barnstar | |
| I hereby bestow this Most Special of Barnstars upon this Most Special of Editors, PetraSchelm. Thank you for your hard work in difficult areas, and for bringing Wikipedia the benefits of your skill, intelligence, academic research, and clarity of writing. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
- Thanks! I like the rainbow, especially. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman
Hey, just to let you know, I wrote out two brief responses to Filll's questions. Regards, Enigma message 03:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AN/I
I have started a discussion about your removal of entire journal/book sources because of questionable online copies. I am not asking for a block, but for you to understand that this is not an acceptable editing policy on your part. forestPIG 20:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are incorrect, and I have replied there already pointing that out. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not picking a conflict here. I just want to point something out. And trust me, I know what I'm talking about. forestPIG 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- ? You posted on AN/I without talking to me about it first, so yes, you are trying to stir up drama. And you're wrong--any reliable source can be cited without ipce. (I left fact tags as placeholders for reformating/replacing with reliable sources). -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- ForestPig, whose admin sock are you anyway (email me privately if you want). I am particularly intrigued by your comment that you know what you are talking about, perhaps you would care to expand on that particular gem. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Petra: The concept was so simple that I presented it in edit summaries. You persisted, so I made a note of it at the old AN/I. No harm in that - and as stated throughout this - no intention to punish you, but just to put you right. forestPIG 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Er, except you're wrong, as was demonstrated in the thread. And I've already left you a message about your inappropriate "edit summary" discussions. Meanwhile, can you provide some confirmation that you are operating a legitimate alternate account, as Squeakbox asked? One trusted editor who could vouch for you? (Your grasp of policy is not consistent with that of an admin...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've never seen you once do anything Petra that deserves the implied hostility in this message from the new editor Forestic Pig. This is a comment from the likes of Jovin Lambton.Googie man (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Er, except you're wrong, as was demonstrated in the thread. And I've already left you a message about your inappropriate "edit summary" discussions. Meanwhile, can you provide some confirmation that you are operating a legitimate alternate account, as Squeakbox asked? One trusted editor who could vouch for you? (Your grasp of policy is not consistent with that of an admin...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- ? You posted on AN/I without talking to me about it first, so yes, you are trying to stir up drama. And you're wrong--any reliable source can be cited without ipce. (I left fact tags as placeholders for reformating/replacing with reliable sources). -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not picking a conflict here. I just want to point something out. And trust me, I know what I'm talking about. forestPIG 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Satanic ritual abuse
Hi,
Please note WP:LEAD - the lead should summarize the page below, and though it's common to find wiki articles that do it, the lead should not include high-level details on the individual sources. Also, Victor isn't the only source for the statement, so to have that level of discussion you'd have to have 4-5 more sentences that deals with the red scare and witch-hunt in each source. Also, there's more than just the quote you pasted (google books search?), on pages 214-6 there's two full pages of discussion of the comparison alone and a total of 5 explicit comparisons between SRA and red scare in the book.
The lead right now, in addition to the page itself, is pretty bad. The whole red scare/witch hunt/blood libel needs much, much more detail in the body, and that should occur before the lead itself reflects it. SRA is a bad page, cobbled together through a long series of hotly contested edits from initially quite poor, now gradually more reliable sources. Given the surprising amount of scholarly sources I've turned up recently, it really needs an overhaul.
What I have concerns about with your edit is the way it appears to 'judge' the source and its statement, that it can be discounted because it involves comparison with hippies and whatnot. That's only one of the five sections that compares the two concepts, and reliability comes not from the content, but the publisher. So long as a reliable source says it, no matter how ridiculous or exagerrated, it can stay on the page (Michelle Remembers is a great example of this - Satan himself appears, but we're not allowed to call it dumb). In addition, as I mention above there are more sources for the communism and witch-hunt statement, and we shouldn't be dealing with or discounting them individually.
It's a twitchy page, and probably going to get messier (if not protected) in the near future. But debate is healthy, so let's keep talking. WLU (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think what we need to see is that 1) other references make that comparison 2) that it's more than a knee-jerk allusion/that there's substantive analysis. (And if so, that should be treated in the body of the article). -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, on both points. I really like your point on the SRA talk page about the definitions of SRA. Very clearly there are multiple ones, and very clearly there is no proof for some but definite proof for others. Unfortunately the page doesn't demonstrate this! Welcome aboard the the SRA train by the way, it's frustrating to edit and often acrimonious and keeps wobbling between a decent, referenced article and a messy pile of dog vomit. Ultimately the best and worst that wikipedia has to offer : ) WLU (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
