User talk:SecondSight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey buddy, started a new thread on 'External Links' on Seduction Community talk page - would love to know your thoughts!

SecondSight: i see you have previously taken up the task of lobbying for a Seduction Community page. I have just added it in the requests for undeletion page. any assistance/thoughts/comments/advice greatly appreciated. Streamless 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • wow, you've done a lot in not a lot of time. perhaps you can help me out: i'm reading 'the game', and i'd like some background info, such as a copy of the original 'layguide' and also descriptions of some to the techniques that are mentioned but not described in the book (such as october man). any direction would be welcome. Streamless 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude - just want to say, appreciate your efforts in getting this all sorted :-) WoodenBuddha

Just saying the same as some of the others, good work! Recently had looked around to see if there was anything related seduction here and found nothing much worth reading. Looking better now, and I'm going to take a look at it all and read (and edit too perhaps...) it all.... cheers. Mathmo 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Critic of seduction industry

It is biological fact that men have poorer social skills than women. So surely the men good at seduction are the men with women's brains. Men did not evolve to chat up women in pubs or think up witty chat up lines. They evolved to hunt and plan and have a strategic vision. It is a biological fact that men who have strategic brains and women have social brains. This is not some BS theory this is fact to do with the index finger ratio theory. This why there are more nerdy men than nerdy women. The geekiness is analytical skill that intelligent men are born with. It is why tend tend to dominate IT and engineering. It is a superior brain for strategic planning. Women are better at socialising than men, they are more socially assertive. So is this entire seduction industry based on a deliberate con. The idea that it prooves you are man to better at chatting people up is the total opposite of reality. The better you are at chatting people up with your social tricks, the better you are at having a female brain. I am certain men with womens brains are better at social manipulation and chatting people up and bullying. Simply as they have the social skills to do such. Yet those very men with the superior male strategic brain will be biologically poorer at the social side.


[edit] Seduction Community

After a little mistake, I have moved your article from your userpage to the article page, keeping its history with it. I've left only the original "I am" edit on your userpage and in its history. The deletion log makes this look worse that it is: I deleted it one time too many! Anyway, it's done now. -Splashtalk 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


  • I agree Ross and David should be included in any decent definition as well, but you can't talk about the Game and Neil without recognizing that Mystery Method was the throughline of the entire book.

Neil's success and entire skillset at pickup is simply Mystery Method and he would be the first to admit that... The Game doesn't exist seperately from MM. The tactical pickup portions ARE all MM. - Mooff

You are absolutely correct on all of these points, Mooff. Unfortunately, many people on wikipedia are ignorant of the seduction community and its history, so they will see your links to Mystery Method stuff as an attempt to spam. This may be unfair and unreasonable, but my point is that from a pragmatic standpoint, I think it's best to wait before talking about anything that could be construed as spamming. I don't want to give people an excuse to attempt to delete the current seduction community article, because that's what happened to the old version of the article, and I only just got the article up. Eventually, I will write up a section on the gurus in the seduction community, which will have to prominently include the Mystery Method, and I will attempt to do this in a way that makes it clear that mentioning the gurus is an important aspect of the history of the seduction community, and not just an attempt to spam. --SecondSight 07:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Game doesn't exist separately from MM" ?!!! And you agree with him, SecondSight? Wow, where did you get this idea? Can we see a reference or two? What about BB, Juggler or Pickup101? There are many more examples and references completely separate from MM! DutchSeduction 09:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. You'll see a lot of controversy coming from two sources:

1. Competition / commercialism which makes these pages a hot spam target for the internet marketeers and their boy fans. See the change history on DeAngelo page, which various meatpuppets have been sanitizing for example.

2. Objections to the material itself. Sex and seduction are controversial subjects with various points of view. This situation leads to argument and conflict. As a result it becomes difficult to maintain NPOV. Watch for the spammers and meatpuppets.

In any case, good job. Let's see if we can keep neutral information available on this subject without too many commercial slants in it!  ;^) DutchSeduction

Thanks, DutchSeduction. And I am no stranger to controversy over the community, from both outside and inside. --SecondSight 22:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to improve the information and to make it as objective as possible. However, you seem to be involved in efforts to whitewash David Deangelo. Like I've said many times, if you can find more objective -- and non-commercial criticial references -- for David Deangelo PLEASE ADD THEM. The reason the P&C reference requires free registration was to prevent spam attacks, which the site has experienced, primarily from Nightlife/Shark, but also from DeAngelo. DutchSeduction 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the story with Formhandle? What is he angry about? I noticed someone has added an external link to FS.com's own "Seduction Wiki". Does he see Wikipedia as competition, or a way to attract more traffic? It's not clear to me what his objection really is. Do you know? DutchSeduction 00:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some history with Formhandle+mASF and the Seduction Community article: when the article was marked for deletion, there was an announcement made on mASF to see if people would be interested in contributing and saving the article. I think Formhandle was negative about WP at that time, and it appears as if he still is. I was surprised to see that he now has his own seduction wiki on his site. I personally don't have any political issue with him at all, and can't understand what is making him angry. DutchSeduction 10:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Formhandle was angry about a comment made next to one of my edits where I suggested advertisers were asked to pay $30,000 for an ad. I can imagine why he wouldn't want people to publicize information about his ad rates, although I didn't realize it at the time. The comment is not part of any article, and hopefully my reply to him will calm him down. DutchSeduction 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Social Dynamics

I spotted your message on user:Ryan Delaney's user talk page regarding this article. Having looked at the history I've semi-protected the article. For future reference the place to request protection or unprotection of a page is at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Social Dynamics vandal

Unfortunately this vandal (whoever he is) has been hitting the Mystery Method article as well. In my opinion it's not frequent enough to justify protecting either of these articles though. I'm watchlisting them both.

If he comes back, please leave {{test}} messages on the vandal's userpage. More information on how to do this is at WP:RCP, I think.

Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stylelife Academy Debate over criticism

First of all...to lay my bias on the table, I am a fan of the Stylelife Academy. It has worked for me, and many of my friends, and so of course I am a huge supporter. That said, I understand Wikipedia isn't a place to spout your own PERSONAL opinions but rather pages should convey a neutral point of view.

That's why the recent edits on Neil Strauss's page under the Stylelife section have begun to alarm me. I have voiced my concern on the talk page over there...but I am unsure what to do next. It seems to me like this one guys opinion is being sourced to much (it is on their twice. Even one sentence that references a single bloggers opinion seems excessive, but two just seems outright wrong).

I'm not suggesting that his page should read like an advertisement, but I just want to make sure the scales don't tip to far the OTHER way either and I am unsure how to proceed. You seem to really know your stuff and have helped clean up a lot of seduction articles around here on Wikipedia, so I was hoping to turn your eye to this issue and see if you can lend a helping hand. GeorgeJorgel (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC) GeorgeJorgel


Just wanted to say thank you very much for cleaning that whole thing up. I knew the citing of blogs seemed strange...glad I turned to someone wiser in the ways of Wikipedia than I. Also, thanks for all your work on Community articles in general. GeorgeJorgel (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC) GeorgeJorgel

[edit] Ross Jeffries Talk Page

Thank you for your concern about the page in question. However these are published material made by Ross Jeffries that are sold and used by Speed Seduction users, and is relevant toward understanding Ross Jeffries and his materials toward the understanding that it is not a cult. Thus cannot be considerated as advertising only as an opinion due to the lack of information concerning pricing, or means of obtaining such material. Please do stop vandalising my opinion pieces and deleting my writings, as it is only supporting the other parties negative views unjustly. This is your first vandalism warning. --Masssiveego 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Product listings for the purposes of discussion their existance, and what effect they have is not about having a soapbox, or advertising. It is the product by product reflect the facts in question that must be brought up as evidence that each product in question only reflect a non religious, dating only means for each product in question. As to refute the claim by the other person that Speed Seduction is a cult. As so the next reader will not be misled by the claims of the former, that Speed seduction is a cult, for determining what is factual and encyclopedic in nature for entry in to the main article itself. The standards above only apply to the main article for editing. Everything listed in the talk page is more for expressing question, comments or opinions for discussion as to determine what should be edited into the article, or side notes about the article.

The article itself is about Ross Jeffries, and as you will note about I give an opinion of what I think is Ross Jeffries products are. The later gave the opinion of against that they would not buy Ross Jeffries products. I give the opinion of for that I probably would buy Ross Jeffries products. The two opinions must balance correctly with facts being presented by both sides until we come to an agreement as to what facts should or should not be added to the article in question. I obvious disagree about adding the above to the article and am refuting the formers arguements by proveing product by product what each product is with a brief description, and obviously noting highlighting the no religious connections.

Would you like to enter mediation to determine a coarse of action for the talk page to better clarify this position? --Masssiveego 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Ross Jeffries, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] MM neologisms

Well, I think that all three are neologisms, regardless of the amount of content on them. I hope you don't take offense to this but I nominated them all for AFD already. However if you can persuade AFD that the page should be kept, I'll not object. Also, if any of the pages do get deleted, I'll be happy to use my administrator power to copy the article content out of the deletion history so you can copy it elsewhere. Cheers --Ryan Delaney talk 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at the Wiktionary rules on neologisms. Maybe we could put these definitions over there. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

Hi SecondSight.

We'd like to thank you for your help with setting up and defending the seduction community on Wikipedia.org. Please contact me at dstone@mit.edu from your stanford address and we'll talk further. Look forward to it.

STONEDMIT 23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstatement of RSD Criticism

SecondSight, I posted the following to the RSD talk pages but would appreciate your feedback since any alteration to the RSD page results in instant edit wars these days. The RSD article has become more of a focus for commercial ends than an information source serving the community. And frankly, that kinda sucks.


Per Wikipedia's guidelines:
'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.'
There will be a reinstatement of the Criticism that was removed yesterday. Whether in whole, part, or slightly modified. I am opening up a discussion prior to making any changes to minimize possible edit wars (which is what some of you actually seem to want). Wikipedia's spirit of inclusion would be violated if facts which are available from published sources are prevented from finding their way into an article. Just because they do not present facets of an article in a good light is NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to exclude them. The issue is relevance and verifiability.
Some of you found the following too disparaging to RSD, while others favored its inclusion:
Criticism
RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss's book 'The Game'. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', lived among pickup artists in his two-year odyssey to document the inner workings of the seduction community. Together with Erik von Markovik (Mystery), Stephen Nash (PlayboyLA), Herbal T, and Papa, they founded the Project Hollywood mansion where key seduction concepts were field-tested and disseminated. Strauss writes of the founding members of RSD, Tyler and Papa:
"There was a lesson here, perhaps the last one this community would teach me. And that was always to follow my instincts and first impressions. I hadn't trusted either Papa or Tyler Durden when I'd first met them. I found Papa spoiled and robotic, and Tyler Durden soulless and manipulative. And though they'd made great leaps forward when it came to fashion and game... The scorpion can't deny its nature." [1]
What, if any, changes to the above would you like to see? More importantly, how should criticism be presented? In researching the RSD article, I found quite a bit of criticism directed at the company from weblogs, forums, and various online sites. Of course, these do not conform to Wikipedia's best practices policy and will not be used. Whether the controversy is fair or not, they exist. And the prevailing company ethos from these unofficial sources does seem to be echoed in Strauss' statement. Again, should a critique of the company even have a place here? And if so, how should it be presented? Wikifly 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seduction community neutrality

In general I like to assume good faith but this is just too obvious. It seems that the Real Social Dynamics people have figured out that it doesn't work to blatantly skew articles and that they have to register and act like editors (gasp) if they want to get anything done. Check out this diff: [1]. I don't know if you've been following these articles but before this sudden string of newly registered users stared editing seduction community articles, the Real Social Dynamics article was repeatedly replaced with an advertizing copy bio of the company, and other bogus criticisms of Mystery Method were added by anons.

I think these users should be dealt with fairly but there is no reason to suppose that their views should apply to "community consensus". User:Keepitneutral, for example, has never edited outside of Real Social Dynamics and Mystery Method; that he is so impassioned about neutrality in just these two articles, well, smells. It appears that they figured out that being blatant doesn't work and that people are actually watching these articles, so they have to try to scare us off. I don't see much point in compromising and discussing article content because any time spent with criticisms of RSD removed or links to the Mystery Method website delinked is possibly thousands of Google impressions that aren't giving readers the information they need. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

Some time ago, you and a few other users placed a mediation request for Talk:Ross Jeffries. Some time ago, I offered to mediate in the case. Anyways, I wasn't sure if you hadn't noticed my offer, or if you were still deciding whether to accept or reject me. In any case, watchlisting the page might help expedite matters. Please don't feel rushed to make a decision. Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The following (in italic) was copied from User_talk:Armedblowfish#MedCom. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I am fine with you mediating. This is just my first time in mediation and the process is new to me. Thanks for offering. --SecondSight 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your confidence in me! : ) I noted your acceptance on the Mediation page, which is where the discussion will be carried out unless you all decide you want private mediation. Please feel free to ask questions about the mediation process at any time. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Average Frustrated Chump

It looks like this article has now been deleted, and since it is a neologism, that is probably the best fate for this article. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

wwwhhhaaaattt?!?! Why did it get deleted? Surely not because it is a "neologism", because as you ought to know that is not in itself anywhere near enough of a reason for an article to be deleted. Mathmo Talk 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, SecondSight

I really appreciate your informed, conscientious (and largely Sisyphean) efforts to keep these seduction community articles lucid and accurate. It's much harder than it looks. Keep up the good work! AlisonPlunderland 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nice_guy

Being a nice guy (or hopefully not being a nice guy - your article now makes me uncertain), I placed some comments at Talk:Nice_guy that you may want to look at. -- Jreferee 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

Updated DYK query On 27 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article nice guy, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive (comment moved from above)

I just find the stuff you do offensive, You seem to have anti victim of bullying agenda. You write offensive drivel suggesting that shy quiet men are dangerous usingt spurius rubbish. You wrote a load of pro bad pro bully stuff. You claim you are 20. I cannot believe that. You seem to fancy abisve vuiolent men. The stuff you write is just offensive chepa trash. It is not a high form of literature. or of any academic merit. Every article you wrote is supportive of abusive men. If you stop this Who are you really. Iyouyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyouyou (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 November 2006

http://www.geocities.com/xaacacacacacacacac/Abbc.htm Argument for "The seduction community cartel" to be chucked of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyouyou (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 November 2006

lol, the comments of "wow, you've done a lot in not a lot of time." applies too iyouyou too! meh, I will assume good faith that secondsight is indeed 20! Why not? After all I'm 22 myself, there you go iyouyou. Take that info in your pipe and smoke it. :-p Personally I'm flattered that he listed me second in the axis of evil, thought there are other more worthy people who would be ahead of me. At least it put me in stitches laughing for ages, still am.... Mathmo Talk 06:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Hi, Iyouyou, I'm sorry you don't like my work. I think you are taking what I write completely the wrong way! I don't think shy quiet men are dangerous. Where have I said anything like that? I was once a very shy guy myself, and I am still relatively quiet. As for being against victims of bullying, huh??? I am a victim of childhood bullying myself. This bullying caused me to become very shy around people, and it really sucked. I don't think shy men are "terrible people," though I do think that if they are unhappy being shy like I was, then society should help them become more social (however, there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy being shy). The people who are truly against victims of bullying are those who pretend that bullying isn't a problem.
I write a lot of pro bad pro bully stuff? Like what? Just because I write articles on the seduction community, it doesn't mean that I agree with everything the community says. No way in hell!! In my opinion, some of the tactics advocated by the community are unethical, and arguably abusive (though I can't just slap my opinion right on the articles, because wikipedia doesn't work that way). My hope is that after reading the articles, people can decide for themselves whether it is a good thing or not. I really chuckled at your idea of the "seduction community cartel." You make me feel like I am some kind of evil mastermind. I almost wish there was such a cartel, because then I would have more help instead of having to do so much writing by myself. Instead of cooperating, I actual end up arguing a lot with other people familiar with the seduction community on wikipedia.
You are right, I am not 20. I am actually 21 now; I just haven't updated my userpage yet. You say that you oppose bullying, but then you turn around and threaten that you are going to find out who I am. That's bullying. I despise bullying. I looked on your website, and I completely agree with you that it is ridiculous how some people support abusiveness in men, or see "nice guys" as a waste of space. Now that I have clarified my motives, I hope you will realize that I am not the evil person you think I am. --SecondSight 09:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
drat, shouldn't have been such an innocent little pure white flower that I am (*cough*, *cough*..) in believing you to be 20. Liar, you are 21! omg, the world is going to collapse. Mathmo Talk 10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project seduction community

After the debacle of a "seduction cartel" it made me feel perhaps a project page could be a handy way for the "cartel" (and any other new members to strengthen the "cartel"! lol) to organise themselves and assist each other in improving as a whole the related articles here on wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An AfD you might be able to comment on

SecondSight, given your interest in both WP:V and the seduction community, I think you might be able to contribute some insight to this AfD. Cheers!--Kchase T 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, noticed you voted delete. Was thinking perhaps if the article was renamed as something more general (such as "forbidden patterns", or perhaps "NLP patterns"?) then you would change your vote to keep? Mathmo Talk 09:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misandry draft

Thanks for acknowledging in Talk:Misandry my paltry contributions to the Misandry draft. It was especially decent of you, considering the backlash it could have produced. If at some point you feel a need to mention that edgarde has had no hand in the content of the article, please go ahead — I'm hoping my reputation in Talk:Misandry won't be held against your work.

And thanks again for your work on the draft. / edgarde 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Why was the Real Social Dynamics page deleted?

Well, someone forgot to inform you or you didn't do your homework before you came into the discussion. AFD is explicitly not a vote. It is a discussion to help establish consensus. From what I saw from sources, one links to amazon.com (which is a violation of the external links policy), one to a blog or personal page or something, which is also against the policy, and one which seemed to have nothing to do with the article. Blogs don't meet WP:RS or WP:V. Corporations must have multiple non-trivial independent sources, and the one in the Times looked trivial at best. Basically, the arguments for deletion outweighed those against deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page; if you feel the deletion was out of process, what you'll want to do is list your arguments at deletion review instead of on the talk page of the afd. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 05:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi SecondSight, I was about to mention to you too that you ought to use deletion review. If you don't feel confident about listing it properly I'm willing to help, just let me know. Mathmo Talk 07:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That quote from the Times is a trivial in passing about a person, nothing mentioning RSD by name. The second one appears to be about the company. The third one is another trivial mention in passing. One souce doesn't meet WP:CORP, which requires multiple non-trivial sources. You seem to get mixed up between "mentioned" and "about". Sources need to be about, not just mention a company. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The article was in a sense a combined personal and company article, in that it was about the company and the person Tyler Durden with many "Tyler Durden" links going to it. Perhaps it could have been renamed to Tyler Durden once again, because I doubt you would have liked the other alternative of splitting the one article up into two. Either way you must remember that generally always whenever an article is discussing Tyler Durden that is the same as discussing what the company does (being that it typically always about his teachings). Mathmo Talk 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the article was deleted for sourcing issues, I have restored the article after you and others have now found more sources that were not talked about or on the article during the AFD. I hope this has settled the issue. Please incorporate the newfound sources into the article so that it will pass WP:V. Have a good day. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent AfD vote

Surprised to see you vote that way, mind explaining why? Consider for a moment if both are deleted, then what you said isn't good grounds for deletion. Mathmo Talk 07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On an almost totaly unrelated point... send me an email sometime, my address is (my username here) at gmail. Mathmo Talk 07:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New seduction community template

In light of the recent nomination of Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community, I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (here). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hey - can you set a real email address in your preferences? I'd love to drop you a line. WoodenBuddha

[edit] David DeAngelo AfD

The David DeAngelo article is up for deletion. Your unbiased views are appreciated. --Amit 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] including Misandry draft in N&Y article

I'm hoping sometime this week to spinout Nathanson and Young from the Misandry article, where N&Y stuff is going tumorous. Would it bug you terribly if I included material from your Misandry draft? I'd certainly credit you on the Talk page.

I'm also hoping my not following through with the Harvard style footnoting didn't stop progress on the Misandry draft. / edgarde 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N & Y

Hi Edgarde, you are welcome to use any parts of the misandry article I was working on. I haven't done any more work on it myself, because dealing with the editors on the misandry page because too frustrating (what's the point of doing a rewrite if other editors can see why it would be an improvement?). I might stop by and help with the N&Y article. --SecondSight 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be pretty helpful. I'll probably just do a quick cut & paste from the existing stuff.
I'll msg you when the task is done./ edgarde 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathanson and Young article created

This deed is done. Thanks for all your help. Time to sit back and watch the edit warring.

One mistake: I left in a lot of junk history from the user page sandbox. I hope this doesn't void the article. / edgarde 03:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A report of interest

Hi SecondSight, just thought I'd let you know about a complex vandalism report I recently wrote. I just came across your rewrite of Misandry and I can see you've expereinced some of their nastier disruptive behavior. A report has been lodged with admins. Please drop me a line if you have any further trouble from this user. BTW they have been inactive for a few weeks andthey haven't been active on that page in a while and the editors at Misandry are making some good progress, if you have anything to add to that page please do--Cailil talk 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Record

Hey there. I'm PolskanPUA. Nice to meet you.

Now I must say, I appreciate what your teamwork with Wooden Buddha and Dutch Seduction has done for the attempted Seduction Project here on wikipedia. However, I'd like to brush by you some ideas because of a little pattern I've noticed. This is stuff I've seen in your contributions.

Consider it a little constructive criticism.

Hi PolskanPUA, I'm flattered that you appreciate some of my contributions to wikipedia, and that my edits have been so interesting to you. As for your reviews of edits, it's been a while since I made them, so in some cases you have to show me my exact offending edit in the history. A lot of the stuff you attribute to me is stuff that I wrote on talk pages, not in articles. Some of the stuff, I'm not sure I wrote at all. You seem to be confused between the rules for articles and the rules for talk pages. I'm going to respond to your specific points on this page.

[edit] Perspective

Mentioning your age, Stanford education, and position as a Community member is valuable, but don't let it get to your head. You had a few edit fuckups in love-shyness, which you seem to identify with--A LOT The problem is, you have used products and read about self-help technique, and now that you have a label for something, like "involuntary celibacy" caused by "love-shyness" or "average-frustrated chumpness" or the newest "nice guy syndrome" you seem to want to learn more about it, but at the same time, you are putting yourself in that mold of "hey, these characteristics fit me". That emphasis on yourself and what you identify as, combined with the ability to model its definition, is what makes for bad editing.

I have my own personal motivations making the edits that I do, and I've made many of them explicit. However, motives are irrelevant; what is important is the quality of my edits. You are going to have to show me exactly where those bad edits were (I'll respond to some of your specific examples below). I don't think I've conflated the topics you mention (e.g. involuntary celibacy, love-shyness, etc...), and the burden is on you to show that I have.

For instance, the Love-shy article was going somewhere on the mental processes of love-shy men, saying ...they would believe everyone was as reluctant as them, refusing to believe women had crushes on them. You tied that in with AFC definition, changing it to the new term, "social anxiety". This is bad precedent. When some new pickup guru shows up, calls the whole thing "Zero Scoring Technique" some user will decide that the latest buzzword for "unconscious lack of Game Products" is suitable, so the definition of love-shyness will be open to change.

Without showing me the specific edit in the history, I can't remember whether I have made any such edits relating to the beliefs of love-shy men about women having crushes on them. Where did I "tie this in" with the AFC definition?

I hope that part's clear; love-shyness was a word from the book and the study, which you transposed ideas of social anxiety onto. In reality, I think the emphasis on love-shy people was self-worth. They studied people who were poor, socially-inept, and weak physically. Therefore, their major problem was becoming independent, confident men in society and in social situations. Social anxiety is a slightly different concept.

I have to ask you, have you actually read Gilmartin's book on love-shyness (downloadable here)? Social anxiety is a main focus of the book, contrary to what you assert. When I searched the pdf, I found that he mentions anxiety 391 times. Considering that the book is 369 pages long, anxiety is mentioned more than once a page. If you even just read the introduction, it should be obvious that Gilmartin is talking about social anxiety (e.g. "Accordingly this book views shyness as: A state of behavioral inaction or avoidance in social situations that is out of harmony with a person’s conscious wants, needs and values, and which is precipitated by a real or imagined social situation clashing with that person’s low interpersonal anxiety threshold and unusually strong fear of anxiety"). I really don't know what to say in response to this criticism, when you clearly aren't familiar with the subject matter.

[edit] Whitewashing

Don't do it. You settled lots of debates with your own opinions, in favor of the Community. You mention, in a debate over Strauss's rumored homosexuality, that he you met him and didn't think he was gay. You also mention that cocky and funny is a good technique in your opinion, and you contend that criticisms against Neil as a traitor are not held by the Community from what you've seen.

Let's start with C&F. Are you talking about this edit? Someone had edited the article saying that C&F was "obviously" unsuitable for beginners, which was an unencyclopedic opinion. I reverted the edit, and said that "C&F is not for beginners? I don't think that's true; it can be a great beginner technique" in my edit summary; I did not post that view in the article. Note that I said it can be, I didn't say that "C&F is a great technique for beginners," the statement that you attribute to me below, so you are making it sound like I said something a lot more unreasonable. Actually, I think that C&F is good for some people starting off, and bad for others; it really depends on the person. Anyway, regardless of whether you agreed with the text of the edit summary, I don't think you've shown an actual problem with the edit that I made, which removed some uncited generalization that C&F is not good for beginners and only good for those with social skills.

In truth, some mention of the rumor could be placed, worded something like Strauss is noted for a metropolitan fashion sense, a lispy voice, and other effeminate characteristics stereotyped with homosexuals. You can't say that anyone looking at his picture would know that. It just isn't encyclopedic. Your meeting with him was very valuable to you, but unless something you saw could be shared with the rest of Wikipedia, its hard to fight or dispel rumors. That's why I think a little statement should be put there, because his PUA image is not immediately congruent with his personality.

I don't think you are being deliberately dishonest, but the above is potentially misleading because it takes my words out of context, and fails to acknowledge that they were placed on a talk page. My actual sentence was "It's true that Strauss appears effeminate, but since, as you say, everyone can tell that from his photo, why do we need to mention it in the article?" First, I'm not implying that we can tell Strauss' sexual orientation from his photo, but rather whether he is effeminate or not. Second, you say that this kind of opinion "isn't encyclopedic." No shit. But I said it in a talk page, which isn't an encyclopedia article. Talk pages are different from articles, and are not under the same rules, so it's perfectly fair for me to note some of my opinions on them.
The context was that some people wanted to include rumors that Strauss was gay into his article, yet no reliable sources where produced for these rumors. If you can find sources claiming that "Strauss is noted for a metropolitan fashion sense, a lispy voice, and other effeminate characteristics stereotyped with homosexuals", then we can include it in the article; if not, then we can't. Whether his PUA image is congruent with his personality in your opinion or mine is not encyclopedic. I know it's true that there these rumors exist about Strauss, but the Wikipedia policy on verifiability clearly states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

C&F is a great technique for beginners? This is the last thing that should be put on Wikipedia. The whole concept of beginner implies a cult-like society with initiation and entrance exams and worse still, ideals of Game. I would avoid the terms beginner and advanced when explaining seduction, just because the heirarchy is not a good idea, and demonstrates, at least to the mainstream, just how pathetic a Community where people imitate others is..

Finally, Neil may or may not have been viewed as a traitor. Some people probably did think so, and some debate will loom about that. I'm sure your personal experience in the Community hasn't revealed much of that, but it is def worthy of discussion. I think that is a great topic for discussion, and its fun to think about. I'm going to put a little inclusion about it in The Game article.

Sure, the topic of Strauss being viewed as a traitor is worth discussion, but it isn't worth inclusion into his article unless there is a source for it. I didn't remove that view from the article just because I hadn't met many people who held it, but also because it is unencyclopedic without a reliable source (e.g. a PUA saying it in some sort of news story or TV program). Since then, I have talked to more people who think that Strauss is a traitor, but any change in my opinion still doesn't make that view encyclopedic. Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
So far, all your examples of my "white-washing" really are where I didn't want to include claims on Wikipedia that were not attributed; are you saying that I should include unattributed claims, lowering the quality of the article and perhaps making it vulnerable to deletion? I've had to become very familiar with these bureaucratic policies to even be able to get anything up about the seduction community onto Wikipedia; I think if you familiarize yourself with WP:A, WP:V, and WP:RS, some of my edits might make more sense to you.


[edit] Bullying

I've seen the comments you made to Quintin3265. That was not right. You have to understand the school of thought he is coming from. He is skeptical, but, shouldn't everyone be? He was very honest in clarifying that pickup is about sexual success with women. You played with MysteryMethod too and erased his criticisms of fraud and social robot theory, which are crucial to understanding seduction companies. You even went far enough as to say, in your own words, Jeffries' position as a fraud is irrelevant to a talk page. What you're doing is censoring opposition and healthy discussion of ideas.

I know I've had exchanges with Quintin, but I can't find many offhand. You will have to show me, and this better be good to warrant your accusation of "bullying." If he wrote that pickup is about "sexual success" with women, then I wouldn't be surprised if I disagreed, because that is really an overgeneralization; many people in the community see it as about a lot more than that. The only response to him by me I can find is in Talk:Ross Jeffries part way down the page, and I'll let others judge for themselves. I think that in fact it was he who was being insulting by comparing the the seduction community to anti-Semitism, and referring to "people like us" as having "supremely inflated egos."
As for Mystery Method, I'm not sure which edits you are talking about, but I did find this one and this one. In the first, I removed the sentence "Neil Strauss referred to some of Mystery's students as "social robots" who became overly reliant on memorized stories and tricks," and said, "removed unsourced material: which of Mystery's students was Strauss supposedly referring to?" I had no objection to putting that comment back in as long as it was more specific about where Strauss said this and about who. In the second edit, I removed a claim that Strauss' original social robots post was a "thinly veiled assault" on the Mystery Method, because it didn't follow a neutral point of view. Personally, I'm pretty sure that Strauss did address his social robot post to many practitioners of the Mystery Method, but I wasn't comfortable including such claims in the article even I personally agreed with them, until it was pinned down exactly where Strauss said this, and that he was intending it to be directed towards the Mystery Method. If you think I was being nitpicky, then fine (nowadays, I might not have bothered making the first of those edits), but my edits were in line with Wikipedia policy.

[edit] Final Note

I actually have a lot of questions for you. I respect all that you have done here, especially with RSD vandalism. Just leave me a msg.

Sincerely,

Polskan, it looks like you are criticizing me for stuff like correctly summarizing Gilmartin's work, removing unattributed material from pages, and posting my opinions in talk pages and edit summaries. Sorry, but I don't find any of these criticisms particularly compelling. I think the reason that some of my edits seem so problematic to you is due to lack of familiarity with some of subject matter (e.g. that social anxiety is indeed an important component of love-shyness), and relevant wikipedia policies (e.g. my removing or protesting unattributed insertions, which appears to you as "whitewashing"), and with the differences between what is acceptable in articles vs. on talk pages. If you review those subjects and you still have constructive criticism for me, then I would definitely take that seriously. In some cases, I'm not sure which edits you are referring to since it's been so long, but if you want to dig them up and show them to me, then I'll either defend them or renounce them. Furthermore, if you want the criticism to be constructive, then you will have to be more careful in how you quote me (rather than misquoting my words or taking them out of context), refrain from potentially inflammatory characterizations of my edits (such as where you pronounced some of them "fuckups") or inflammatory accusation (e.g. "bullying"). I know you intended your comments as constructive, and that is the spirit in which I have taken them, but I wanted to make sure you saw how they could be taken non-constructively.
You are welcome to ask me any questions you have; I am on Wikipedia to write good articles, not to engage in ego battles.
P.S. it looks like you tried to sign your post with four dashes; try four tildas instead. One more thing; if you respond on this page, could you do it below, rather than next to each point (which will just become very hard to read?). Thanks.

--SecondSight (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first and foremost, thank you for responding. I feel privileged to be talking to a real pioneer here on Wikipedia, and for that reason, I took special attention to the inner motives and thoughts that go through your mind as you edit the Seduction articles here. Remember, whenever someone has a hefty influence on Wikipedia, much of their inner beliefs and perspective becomes intermeshed with the work.

Regarding my criticisms, I can only tell you that I have seen clear bias here on wikipedia before and when I saw your talk page and your special interest in Seduction, I wanted to make sure I was looking at a competent, well-rounded individual. One major concern of mine is the phenomenon of "Internet flaming". It's when someone goes on a blog or Wikipedia and posts edit after edit aimlessly, working to exercise as much of their influence as possible. When you stated that you "single-handedly wrote or re-vamped entire articles on the Seduction Community," and mentioned your status as an Ivy League student, a big red flag went up in my mind. After reading into your contributions, I found that you certainly are not guilty of any negative traits, and I won't pursue any more criticism or "inflammatory characterizations."

I still would like to know one thing. You stated several times that you are a member of the Community and that you have met Style. Let me know, what do you do in the Community? Is it like that movie School for Scoundrels? Are you in a Lair? Since you're in college, is there a big college following? Just let me know, because I honestly find it intriguing.


Sincerely, --PolskanPUA (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)