| Revision as of 06:07, 5 February 2006 editParoxysm (talk | contribs)1,296 edits →Userbox: no thanks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:30, 6 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (55 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==You OK?== | |||
| ] | |||
| Everything Okay, Paroxysm?] 05:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User:ViolinGirl/Welcome}}--]''''']''''']<sup>]</sup> 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 22:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reborn== | |||
| == Medical causes (pedophilia) == | |||
| He's probably been reborn somewhere in a far corner of Misplaced Pages we may never know... --] 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Kinda don't blame him.] 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not such a far corner. He hasn't disappeared at all. -] 04:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::What? Do you know something about Paroxysm we don't, Will? ] 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That depends on what you don't know. -] 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yea, what he said. --] 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hunh... I came here to ask the exact question Zebruh did. ] 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Comments== | |||
| I made one claim, that brain malfunctions can cause pedophilia and I don't know what better reference you would like to have. I read similar statements in various scientific magazines, though I could only track down this case. | |||
| Paroxym can you please justify your comment on my page, i at no point mentioned child killing, please leave your own opinions at the door when altering Misplaced Pages - ] Unknown date | |||
| ==No problem== | |||
| So I'm looking forward to your "better" causes section. (unsigned ]) | |||
| '''''Moved your comment.''''' | |||
| :Claims that pedophilia is a product of mental problems are ''ridiculous''. Please see "Pedophilia and Temporal Lobe Disturbances" in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, Winter 2000, page 71-76. The report finds that the brain problems in two particular pedophiles caused '']'', not pedophilia itself, hence bringing their underlying pedophilia to the surface. For most pedophiles, or at least ''assumedly'', the urges are already prominent and do not need brain tumors or whatever News of the World wants to suggest tomorrow to highten their urges. | |||
| Yes, that was an accident. Sorry. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No problem. But I am confused?? '''''21:24, February 17, 2006 Ineloquent (support Paraphilia) | |||
| :There is a plenty of research and more reasonable proposed causes, however, and these would fit nicely into the article. If you're interested in writing anything unsided, then I have a list of sources I will be looking into soon regarding the matter which would be quite helpful. | |||
| ''''' | |||
| What'up with the name?? The conversation above?? ] ] 04:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I suck at logging out. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Um== | |||
| :Suggestions that all pedophiles have mental problems, even though many others have put in valid investigation on the true cause, and that this is the reason pedophilia has developed, is simply an attempt to discredit it as some sort of disease. I would have ''hoped'' that the pedophilia opposition would not stoop to laying out such fraudulent claims, but... | |||
| Paroxysm, I wanted to apologize for what I said at the Mfd for WikiProject Pedophilia... that was a battle, and in the heat of battle fingers can fly faster than minds can think. But no excuse. The main thing that irritated me about the MfD was that I knew it might compromise my ability to be seen as NPOV in future... enh, what can I say. I look forward to working with you in future. ] 07:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I'm not sure what you're apologizing for so clearly you don't have to apologize for it. :-) <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks for your voting!== | |||
| :Well, you can't very well win a war against pedophiles if you're going to use false facts to lay out your position. Try again. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hi, thanks for your voting on ]. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Misplaced Pages and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you. | |||
| If you feel I can help you or Misplaced Pages as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! ] 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you fighting a war pro pedophiles? I'm not fighting any war. | |||
| :But you're perfectly right. In order to save children from being molested, we have to understand the true causes behind those deeds. I do not have access to the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, Winter 2000, but I am aware, that at least part of the scientific community views pedophilia as mentally caused, thus it's definetely not ridiculous. If you know a side, that I am not aware of, please educate me. | |||
| ==AID== | |||
| If you're looking for a good reference for this subject, this book is a good place to start: http://www.ipce.info/host/radicase/ | |||
| <div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10%;"> | |||
| Good luck =) ] 08:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="notice noprint" id="{{{id}}}" style="background: #ffccFF; border: 1px solid #ff33FF; margin: 0 auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] | |||
| | Thank you for your support of the ''']'''.<br>This week ''']''' was selected to be improved to ] ].<br>Hope you can help… | |||
| |} | |||
| </div> | |||
| == |
==Your userpage== | ||
| Not so hot. ] <small>]</small> 14:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed you are interested in this, as I am. It's the psychological aspects that led me to that Child-love article. I'm well-versed in psychology, but don't know much about this as yet. I would like to learn more, and I may be of help if you need second opinions and such with your ideas and writing. I personally think it is more related to aspects of childhood thinking that brought relief from anxiety in childhood, but became so strongly associated with comfort that this aspect has been retained into adulthood. I don't know if this makes any sense, but I'm sure it's complicated. | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Anyway, I'm just letting you know I may be interested in working with you on this. And I might add I'm not really on any "side". I don't agree with adult-child sex at all, but I think if people are resonable, their positions deserve attention. --] 04:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| There is another stawpoll on the disputed offensive image currently underway at ]. ] - ] 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==List of shock sites== | |||
| From what I've seen, there doesn't seem to be any accepted "cause of pedophilia". Obviously, there is a need for objective research to be conducted into the field. Unfortunately, most pedophiles are too scared to come forth about their orientation, and thus research about "pedophiles" is mistakenly undertaken by sampling child sex offenders... | |||
| Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to ]? ] 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you're interested in launching some studies of your own into the matter, let me know ;) | |||
| ] 06:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Userboxes== | |||
| ::There are ideas and reputable people's writings that can be referred to. And I believe it is true that there is much misinformation, and a lot of people seem to want it that way. I believe there could be good research done, but the public atmosphere isn't amicable to such things. Consequently, it seems the lack of info hurts the potential for treatment and people, children and adults, continue to suffer. | |||
| I did a little general clean-up on your userboxes. However, Misplaced Pages wouldn't let me save the page until I had removed two sites from the page (it has a spam blacklist) so I tried to go around that as well as I could. — ]] <sup>(])</sup> <sub>/ <em>03:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)</em></sub> | |||
| ==Untagged image== | |||
| ::May be there is no great research. But we can at least strive to avoid ''misinforming.'' --] 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| An image you uploaded, ], was tagged with the {{tl|coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a ] or ], it should be tagged as {{tl|seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at ]. -- 11:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}}== | |||
| == Re : Misspelling == | |||
| ] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> — ] <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">(]|])</span> 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Done. :) - ''Cheers'', ] 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, Paroxysm. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under ] that was in your userspace. The image (]) was found at the following location: ]. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our ]. The image or media was replaced with ] , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. ]] 07:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Notability== | ||
| I'm of a shared opinion of the non-notability of GC but some of the comments people made about it, you were right to correct them, as they were not appropriate adjectives and were used flagrantly and chastisingly without any evidence. I'm sorry no one else saw fit to correct them at the time. ] (]) 06:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Out of curiosity, what made you remove the ] from this article? -- ] <i><sub>]</sub></i> 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Childlove is synonymous with pedophilia, the attraction to real children. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == New Commercials Target == | |||
| I will revert your last edits to the target page, because they didn't create a new commercial specifically to include the Christians, and to say they did is a misrepresentation of the facts. Think, on the 12th the boycott started and when were the commercials released? Before Christmas several days so say they had 10...they dragged everyone out there, and spent all that money to film a new commercial? I don't think so. To make it more clear that same commercial branded as "new" was on ''before'' the 12th...meaning...that they just changed the end slide. ] 23:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't make that edit, I don't know why it's attributed to me. I was just fixing the spelling of "controversial." <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I didn't mean to snap at someone who had nothing to do with it. ] 00:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Um, your war on christmas edit == | |||
| You changed the henry ford paragraph to state the publication was just using fords name. Do you have evidence showing this? Please respond on my talk page, or on ]. --] 06:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bot== | |||
| Just to let you know, your bot ] has violated the ] on ]. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 06:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : That feature of NekoDaemon bot has now been disabled until I upgrade to include a security feature. All concerns regarding the change should be directed at: ] for he was the one who used the {{tl|categoryredirect}} template. --] ] 08:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright, that's a 24 hr. ban for the BOT 'till he learns to behave himself! --] 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Suggestion of POV in the VFD of ]== | |||
| I don't quite see a reason for that article under any title, as a "childlove movement", the article's main interest, has close to zero mention anywhere beyond Misplaced Pages itself.] 18:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It has about 13,000 google hits. - 1 for Misplaced Pages, thats 12,999. A far cry from zero. --] 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not what I get. This search shows 524 hits, of which only 145 are unique, . A substantial number of those appear to be Misplaced Pages mirrors. -] 20:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just typed it in and looked at the #. "Results 1 - 10 of about 13,000 for Childlove. (0.09 seconds)" If I'm wrong, so be it. --] 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==The arguing== | |||
| It's getting a little ridiculous over there. No one is citing anything but their own opinions. How come this Childlove article became so popular all of a sudden? Did something happen in the news? --] 00:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I assume it's just recieved some extra attention due to the VFD and the nonsense, because there hasn't been many recent news articles on the movement... except for a few about Lindsay Ashford, but those are incessant. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Man, it just gets more and more bizarre. My interest is in psychology, that's how I came to the article originally. But this is getting way over my head, and I just don't know enough about it to keep up. I try to find definitions, but it seems there are almost as many definitions as there are people that comment on it. I am sensing that a bomb of some sort is about to go off. --] 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Another thing. I'm also concerned that if too many emotionally charged people get involved, the right thing might not get done. --] 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::LOL, yes it was a mistake. Thanks. --] 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I made this comment as a reply to you at the Ped-Advocacy talk page but would like to put it here for your convenience (I think it sums some things up nicely): | |||
| As my history with women will gladly testify, I'm not in any way a pedophile...and they can tesyify to that (especially the one who hates my guts!) Too many freaking parents think the government should raise their children, protect them, and run their minds for them. People don't want to take responsibility for anything anyore. | |||
| But really, I'm more of a nit-picker and a free-speech nut. (I'm a person with opinions too strong for my own good). I've had a history of getting involved in controversial stuff (I've had to swear myself away from the Creation/evolution articles), and apparently I haven't learned my lesson yet (stick to the rocks, and plants, and flowers...) --] 14:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==LGBT== | |||
| Should we take this to arbitration?] 21:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There is obviously not consensus to remove the LGBT category from ]. I personally consider our RFAr to be a bizarre process, but if you feel that is neccesary to resolve that NAMBLA is not an LGBT organization, go ahead. ], or you actually providing a good argument on the talk page, would seem more appropriate to me, but obviously it's not getting us to a peacefire. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is obviously no consensus to keep it in the cat. Moreover, I think it's clear that apart from the small group of pedophile advocates, most wikipedians who've considered the issue agree NAMBLA is not LGBT - just look at the results of the interventions via the RFC (I put up an RFC a week or so ago, that's why all these new people have joined the talk page).] 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you are showing your hand by calling everybody who disagrees with you on this issue "pedophile adovcates." That's not the language of somebody who is interesting in maintaining neutrality through focusing on the substance of the disagreement. ] 22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yet, "most Wikipedians" have still not been able to provide any irrefutable arguments for the removal of the category. NAMBLA is a gay organization because it promotes gay sex. Gay sex is homosexual sex. Homosexual sex is sex between a male and a male or a female and a female. It is LGBT. | |||
| :I don't say that because of any personal bias; I don't like NAMBLA at all. I just think it should be in the LGBT category because it promotes homosexual sex. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 21:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The difference between ''gay'' and ''homosexual'' is subtle, but it exists. ''Gay'' is a cultural term to describe people and their lives, while ''homosexual'' is more clinical and describes sex acts. People who make this distinction, as I do, agree that NAMBLA is a homosexual advocacy organization, but it does not fit into gay culture and perhaps doesn't belong in the LGBT category. ] 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::They are all also artificial definitions. Many things can be described as homosexual without also being gay. NAMBLA is perhaps advocating a type of homosexual sex, but "Gay" is not a word that describes that type of homosexuality. I see a lot of people debating with terms that are ill-defined, and perhaps different people are using the same words and meaning different things. Until all the emotional fireworks stop though, I don't think any progress will be made. | |||
| :::You might try to set up a page and let each side make their case, and then ask outside observers who don't frequent the page to look at it. --] 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, as I really don't have any stake in this <strike> (i.e. I don't really care a great deal one way or the other) I would be willing to look at a clean statement from each side and comment on it. I feel I can be unbiased, even though I have previously offered an opinion. I'm not sure if that opinion is valid though as I'm constantly learning new things. --] 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC) </strike> | |||
| Have any of yall seen this: ] ?--] 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am striking portions of an older comment by myself as I have now taken a position on the issue. Just FYI. --] 16:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==From VfD cont'd== | |||
| You think promoting a point-of-view is grounds to be "beaten down" by a mob with baseballs bats and axe handles? That's a disgusting assault on your country's right to free speech, not to mention an obvious clue that the only way you can invalidate that person's ideas is by removing them entirely. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I think that those individuals who act on thier ''childlove'' instincts, should not be "beaten down", because after all a "beat down" means there is a chance for them to get up again. I suppose I can take solice in the fact that "childlovers" are often subject to much worse abuse in jail than anything they could every conjure up while they were free. ] 02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think molesting a child is awful, but I consider murder even worse. I guess we have a grave difference in opinion. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: A least for the dead, the pain is usually over. ] 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So I guess you can look forward to it. --] 16:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == citation needed is not censorship == | |||
| I invite you to the loli talk page where the discussion on the picture is taking place. I put citation needed on parts of the article that are unverified, and given that they are unverified I don't think it would be censorship if I deleted them. We have agreed that if there were a section on loli-manga then the picture would go there, but since there is not, there is no reason to define the entirety of lolicon to manga with that picture. Anyway, see you on the talk page. ] 20:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Lolicon == | |||
| Please use the talk page to discuss the placement of a child pornography image in the ] article. Also, you reverted over some citation requests. Please restore the tags or provide the cites. Thanks, -] 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I began writing up a reply at ] immediantly after I reverted. But I guess it might have been best to respond beforehand. | |||
| :..And it's not child pornography. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, I see you have and have responded there. An image of a child in a sexual situation, produced for the purpose of sexual titilation. Yes, that's child pornography. -] 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess whether you consider it child pornography is a matter of personal opinion. It, itself, certainly doesn't seem to meet the US law for child pornography, which is all that matters according to ]. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Some such material may be an expression of the person's past experiences, expressions of their feelings of purity in the nude form, of being naked before the world. There are lots of art forms that can encompass the nude form. Portrait photos of boys' torsos used to be a popular thing, as being hairless it resembles the Greek forms of human representation. Even Edward Weston did this with his son Niel (I think that's how it's spelled). If he took his pictures today, he'd be called a kitty porner. The idea of a sexual situation is simply a subjective thing in some cases, and society is forcing many things into the porn category that are highly questionable. I went by an article today that was saying some painting of Cupid done back in the 19th century was kitty porn because it was nude and "not in a typical situation" in which a child would be nude. That's horseshit. | |||
| ::::For some people, the child's form expresses something (freedom, purity, innocence, vulnerability...etc.) that the adult form does not, and at the same time has nothing to do with sexual arousal. I haven't even been to the Lilicon article, but I'm going to take a look. There seems to be a strong bias developing against having children in any kind of art. --] 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just have strong opinions about art as I am an amateur photographer and have studied art history quite a bit. --] 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Appreciation== | |||
| We don't see eye to eye on some things, but I think you are a valuable new addition to the Misplaced Pages communty Paroxysm, and I think your efforts deserve something. So...here ya go: | |||
| ], award you the '''Barnstar of Resiliency''']] | |||
| --] 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you! :) <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:User true antiracist == | |||
| Hi, I noticed the image you used on this was tagged as 'fair use' copyright status. It is forbidden, under our copyright policy, to use fair-use images other than in articles. Could you please review ] before adding any more images to wikipedia. Thanks. --] ] 10:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry; didn't notice. I've replaced it. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == AFD: Lolicon == | |||
| Hi paroxysm. I am sorry if my nomination of this article has offended you. I do consider it an issue that children can view these images, because as the article states, it may be used for grooming. However, I respect your views and thank you for voting on the issue. I can see a clear concensus building for the article to be kept. Am I allowed to withdraw the article from the AFD list, and work on it instead? ] 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC) ] | |||
| :You ] allowed to close it early if clear consensus has developed. You can work on it, but I don't think you'll get anywhere by deleting the links; even if they somehow lead to a lolicon picture being used for grooming, the goal of Misplaced Pages is to present all factual information and any useful external links, not to engage in some sort of ] deletion of material which could be potentially harmful. And at any rate, removing the link isn't going to make lolicon disappear. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ])]]</div> | |||
| == On straightening out Andre Gide == | |||
| I am not sure what drove your removal of that material, but descriptions of writers' motivations and inspirations are standard fare of critical thought. The material you removed was actually brought over by me from the French version, since I am not a Gidean scholar and the French, if anyone, should know their own. On the off chance it may be of use to you, here is the version around the time I did the work (it has not changed much since): | |||
| :''Volonté de liberté et d'affranchissement à l'égard des contraintes morales et puritaines, son œuvre s'articule volontiers autour de la recherche permanente de l'honnêteté intellectuelle. Comment être pleinement soi, jusqu'à assumer sa différence sexuelle (pédérastie avérée), sans jamais démériter à l'égard de ses valeurs ? Cet aspect politique de l'œuvre de Gide reste toutefois marginal : c'est par ses œuvres de création et plus encore par son œuvre autobiographique que l'écrivain a le mieux cherché à réconcilier les deux personnalités qu'une éducation rigoriste et une morale sociale trop étroite avaient divisées : l'homosexuel avide de jouissance finit sans doute par cesser de rougir devant le protestant austère et raffiné.'' | |||
| Regards, ] 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I removed those introductory paragraphs because they were riddled with ] and unencyclopedicness: they're written more in a tone of glorifying his 'search for truth' than actually presenting factual information. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, it may be that the French is a bit grandiloquent, or my own style a bit florid, but even with my limited knowledge of Gide it seems apparent that the essence of those two paragraphs addresses the main conflicts and challenges in Gide's work and life. An artist's personal search for truth is not something unspeakable in an encyclopeadia, as long as it is phrased in neutral, rather than hagiographic, terms. I will attempt a more sedate rendition of the text. ] 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your latest revision looks much better to me. Thank you. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 03:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The NAMBLA discussion == | |||
| Funny, we meet again. I think we need to come up with a better solution to the intro paragraph. The formulations you are devising, like "universal" or "inherent" make it seem as though "sexual acts between adults and minors" are without fail or exception illegal, while this is far from the case and actually stands things on their head quite a bit. The point here is that this group proposes removing the various nuanced restrictions and regulations on such activities altogether, as opposed to the present situation, where such activities are allowed but controlled in many, if not most, jurisdictions. ] 20:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We're saying that NAMBLA reasons such relationships do not ''deserve'' inherent criminalization, as is the situation in North America, not that any sexual activity between adults and unprivileged minors is forbidden worldwide. Since they simply want to remedy what they believe is an inadequate system, I don't think it's appropriate to say they advocate the removal of ''all'' criminalization of these relationships. They just want to the law to recognize their view that adult-child sex is not inherently abusive. | |||
| :Paraphrased, the version you last instated says that NAMBLA believes no sex between adults and minors should ever be prosecutable, without exception. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I see what the problem is. The current version, "It denies this charge, claiming sexual acts between adults and minors are not necessarily exploitative, and thus do not deserve inherent criminalization." implies that '''any''' sexual contact between an adult and a minor is inherently criminalized. But, even in North America, relations with minors are legal in many instances, with many US states granting sexual franchise to youths at sixteen or seventeen, to say nothing of Canada where the age limit is fourteen. So the terms "universal" or "inherent" are simply inaccurate and misleading. ] 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps "misleading," but not inaccurate. To me, they do not imply anything more than is directly said, but maybe you can concoct some better way to express it. "''Any criminalization''," however, denotes that they believe all adult-minor sex should be legal. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will think of something, but why do you say that they are '''not inaccurate''' when they clearly are neither universal nor inherent, but focused primarily on relations with younger minors, while older minors have a relative degree of license to engage in such relations? So much of the strife around these issues revolves around miscommunication (including NAMBLA's disastrous and wrongheaded notion of advocating for the abolition of all AoC laws) that it seems important to resolve this point before we go further. ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*NAMBLA believes relationships between adults and minors do not deserve universal criminalization | |||
| :::::*We say NAMBLA believes relationships between adults and minors do not deserve universal (read: ) criminalization | |||
| :::::I don't see how this is misleading. We are not claiming that having sex with minors is inherently illegal, we're stating that NAMBLA asserts these relationships don't deserve to be treated indiscriminately. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 22:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nice and simple solution. Thank you. ] 22:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Username deletion == | |||
| Username accounts cannot be deleted because that would interfere with the tracking of edits. User talk pages are not deleted because they involve input from the pcommunity (they don't "belong" to the user). User pages, which should only have been edited by the user, may be deleted. Is that clear? -] 00:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi. I was hoping I could beg a bit of your time to look at this article and the comments on the talk page (trust me, compared to some, it's quite short). I'd just like to see if you have any comment about it. Do you know anything about these laws? Unfortunately I think I've stuck my head into another nest of things I have strong opinions on but don't know much about (when will I learn...?). But it seems to me that under the laws quoted, the picture in the article would be KP, meaning I broke the law by just looking at the article.(?) If you are too busy, then don't worry about it, and take care. --] 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The decisions made in the past concerning the act make it seem like it is not a matter of whether the image is actually "indecent," but whether it's being used in an "indecent" manner, i.e. in the same way child pornography would be used -- for arousal. The laws are confusing and overly subjective, so I'm not sure whether reproducing that painting as a thumbnail here would be deemed CP, but I doubt the courts would actually prosecute it unless it was being used ''as'' CP. | |||
| :They might also consider the context of its creation or reproduction to determine whether it's "indecent." Since we're displaying it for educational purposes, I don't think they would charge for possession just by accessing this article. They might, perhaps, charge for possession if you found it on a "child erotica" page or something like that, or if a pedophile were to paint the exact same image, except for the purpose of sexual arousal. | |||
| :..To summarize, I dunno. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::K, thank you for that. Another user posted some really good suggestions at the article's talk page that seem to really bring the article's deficiencies into better focus. Law stuff is not really my area, but I'm gonna try to flesh it out a bit more. | |||
| ::Once again, thanks. --] 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Let's just get rid of that teabagging image, already.== | |||
| I was to chicken to get rid of that image in the teabagging article until the anonymous contributor did it. I don't believe the uploader of ] saying "Made it myself." If you just Google Image Search for "teabagging", you will see the image popped in several websites. It is a popular image. We will probably don't know who is really the source of the image which makes probably a copyright violation... --] 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ha ha== | |||
| That "teabagging" image needs to go. Heh he. --] 23:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==RE: Everglades pictures== | |||
| There's no copyright on them, all the pictures were taken by me. I thought I specified that when I uploaded them. {{unsigned|Catholic 85}} | |||
| == re ] == | |||
| Hi, I'm message you because you're listed as having recently edited this article. What is going on with this article? I saw that the name changed again, its been protected, is tagged NPOV disputed, etc. Is it coming into shape, or what? Per some discussion starting with the article's AfD a couple weeks back, I created a project structure to address this article, here: ] I'm not an expert on subject or article, so I'm asking current editors -- Do you think this would still be useful, or what? Thx ] 14:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == POV claim on lolicon == | |||
| Paroxysm, Do not remove the tag again! First notice that it's not <nowiki>{{POV}} but instead it's {{POV-CHECK}}</nowiki>. I’m merely nominating for it to be checked by OTHER people for POV. Thus the statement reads "...nominated this section to be checked for its neutrality...". I just wanted to avoid discussing it myself. There's a slew of people who keep an eye on that category and they’ll come to it eventually. | |||
| Paroxysm, I do not have a problem with the pedo subculture being here, if Lolicon lowers sexual tension then, great! Let it be there and let it be available. You are lucky to live in a place where free speech such as that is allowed. However the pedo subculture must be wary not to push it’s POV as aggressively as this, it will cause a backlash, eg with people like me and even worse with sites such as: www.wikipedophilia.com which threaten Misplaced Pages as a whole. | |||
| You must keep in mind that this is an intense subject matter and people will not change views no matter how the facts are presented and how strong the facts are. It’s very similar to research conducted . You will not have reporters come up to this article and change their minds. Just like w/ any movement, such as black rights, gay rights, things take time…. a VERY long time. Look at what happened in France, the black youth revolted and now there’s a slew of hatred for blacks, immigrants and Muslims. Pushing “any” controversial subject that hard will get you into hot water. | |||
| Here’s what’s POV regarding that section: | |||
| #''Illustrated and fictional lolicon is frequently accused of being similar to or a form of pedophilia'' Let's use a simple analogy on this, if I say tht ''"Jessie Jackson if frequently accused of being racist"'', then inherently it's assumed that I'm I'm a Jessie Jackson supporter. That statement should better be worded: ''"Jessie Jackson has come under fire frequently for making racist remarks"''. In the same fashion the article should state that "lolicon has come under fire for being a subtle form of pedophilia". Don't even bother trying to claim it's not pedophilia, you yourself stated: '''''loli's all about erotic depictions of girls''''' . | |||
| #''Another point of note is that the children depicted in lolicon often do not have realistic proportions for their apparent age, more closely resembling older females on a smaller scale'' I can't vouch for this fact but I can say that is not 100% true considering the cover image, she looks like a kid as far as I can see. | |||
| #I have placed ''CITE'' tags at other disputed statements as they speak for themselves. I can't vouch for their authenticity but such claims require strong evidence. | |||
| Again, consider what you "win" from this and what you got to loose. ] 06:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Um.. sorry, guy with Arabic name, but I don't really get you here. | |||
| :Here's what it says now, paraphrased: | |||
| ::''Some people think lolicon caters to pedophilic desires.'' | |||
| :Here's what you think it should say, paraphrased: | |||
| ::''Lolicon caters to pedophilic desires.'' | |||
| :Your version asserts a POV to be true; ''this'' would be a violation of our NPOV policy. The current version presents other people's POV without judging its veracity. This is standard and definitely not editorialism. | |||
| :I agree with your second point (sort of; at least that we shouldn't be saying whether or not they look like kids), but your third is not an issue concerning neutrality -- though all the same a problem needing rectification. | |||
| :And.. what do you mean? I don't have anything to lose from editing Misplaced Pages. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 19:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sentence== | |||
| Hi, we meet again! | |||
| I'm trying to balance things, and I have no trouble if you feel changes in my edits are needed. In fact, I appreciate the double-checking. That sentence was actually added by an anon and I reverted it. I tried to word it better and place it after the main comment, as the article subject should come before the criticism. | |||
| Still, though I want to acknowledge the dissenting opinion, can we use words like "universal"? I removed that and put "largely". And I want to add "many of", as in the following: | |||
| :"However, despite their claims, '''many of''' these groups are largely condemned by world governments and the general population." | |||
| But what data do we have for this? I don't think groups that simply want recognition of their condition and basic human rights are being condemned, it's the ones calling for allowing potentially abusive sex. I don't know if people even take the time to actually read what these people are saying. Anyway, I want to acknowledge the dissent, but I want to do it fairly. Comments appreciated. | |||
| And ...yadda yadda... by now you know I'm long winded. Thanks for the time and Cheers! --] 22:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure how a sentence like that could ever be properly cited, unless we were to survey all the governments and people in the world, which isn't likely. Although it's probably true that most people would condemn pedophilia groups, I don't see a claim like that being verifiable. | |||
| :I don't recall any governments issuing official statements condemning pedophilia groups, either; but definitely some governmental organizations censuring adult-child sex umbrellas. Rather than saying most people, even if this is true, it would probably be more encyclopedic to cite specific examples of critique. I remember an article at ].com, a website specializing in hating everything under the sun, that argued against 'childlove' bodies, but I can't seem to find it... they said something like that being around other pedophiles (rather than being isolated from them) "normalizes" pedophilia. | |||
| :So yeah, I agree, it'd be pretty hard to get data on something like that. I'll try to find some verifiable, specific dissenting opinions. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've changed it to reflect two verifiable opinions, one condemning adult-child sex and the other support groups.. Hopefully that works. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I was drawn to this article watching the recent edits. It has Ephibophilia linked to Lolita, and since you have edited stuff like that, perhaps you would know whether this should be changed. I wasn't sure what to do with it. --] 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == But why ? == | |||
| Me and my husbands blog, is 100% non commercial we just wanna meet like minded and have some fun ? | |||
| Regards Amber | |||
| == Deletion review template == | |||
| Good idea. - ]]] 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Thank you for that note. As you can tell, I really need a break... --] 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks #2== | |||
| Thank you for encouraging... ] | |||
| == DC streets == | |||
| An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see ]. - ]]] 05:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sofixit== | |||
| Sorry to bother, but your comment at that Padophila article has this: ]. I'm going mad trying to figure out exactly ehat it means. Is it a mistake, or are you saying he should fix that article? I even put it in the ] and it gives that paragraph about contributing. | |||
| I'm not complaining. I'm just curious as to what I'm missing here. Like when you have a song in your head and for the life of you can't think of the song's name. --] 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably just telling him to fix it, just not in the particular way he was. To say what he was trying to say, but in a different way. --] 01:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wikipediholoc== | |||
| It's Hopeless! I'm a Wikipediholic!! --] 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you're interested ] is up for the ], and needs ''just one more'' vote to get to the next stage. Just if you're interested. --] 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know much about ego, superego, and id, but I'm sure I can learn, and that article needs some work, so okay. And lol, long time no see. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 23:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's the basics of modern psychology, originally posited by ]. | |||
| *'''Id''' = instinct/libido; | |||
| *'''Superego''' = morality/rules/social norms/big brother; and | |||
| *'''Ego''' = mediator between them, because '''instinct vs. morals = conflict''' | |||
| ::That's ''reeal'' rough anyway. Take notes, as there will be a pop quiz. --] 00:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Yet another one you may find interesting... Might be identical or very close to ]. --] 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==refs== | |||
| I may have mess up some of those refs. That one was not linking right. I think it's supposed to link to the same ref though. Why can't you cite the same thing twice? | |||
| I'm not sure what to say to the people (especially this guy) who come in complaining about the article. I don't see how the article is ''that'' bad. I think they just want a POV slant to one side. But that's what frustrates me so, you can't help if they don't give specifics or reasonable references. | |||
| Sorry to be the only one taking up half your talk page. --] 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't worry about it. | |||
| :The <nowiki>{{ref}}</nowiki> template increases the <sup></sup> by one every time it's used, so if we use it twice to link to the same thing below which only occurs once, on the second time the <sup></sup> doesn't match up with the listed ref. It'll say <sup></sup> but link to #2; that makes things especially confusing if it's printed out. I'm not very good at explaining things. | |||
| :And sorry I don't always reply. For some reason I get nervous when trying to engage in a friendly conversation with someone I can't see.. which makes the Internet kinda inconvenient. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're not alone in those feelings by any means. I often find this type of communication awkward as well. --] 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| First of all, thanks very much for reverting the vandalism on ]. It seems to have been a big target for vandals recently... just so you know, you forgot to leave a note of the talk page of the user who vandalised it (]). I have no idea if you've been reverting vandalism for ages and just forgot this time, or if you're completely new to the whole thing, so please don't take this message the wrong way... =) I've left a note on his talk page, so you don't have to worry about it. Thanks for your time! -- ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Userbox== | |||
| Did you create ] with an intent to use it, or just ]? If you do intend to use it you ought to put it on your user page so that MarkSweep wo'n't have an excuse to . "Internet" indeed. ] <small>]</small> 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I created it because I thought it might be useful, though I don't personally want it on my page. <code>// ''']''' ]</code> 06:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:30, 6 March 2023
You OK?
Everything Okay, Paroxysm?Zebruh 05:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Reborn
He's probably been reborn somewhere in a far corner of Misplaced Pages we may never know... --DanielCD 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Kinda don't blame him.Zebruh 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not such a far corner. He hasn't disappeared at all. -Will Beback 04:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- What? Do you know something about Paroxysm we don't, Will? Ineloquent 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- That depends on what you don't know. -Will Beback 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, what he said. --DanielCD 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hunh... I came here to ask the exact question Zebruh did. Herostratus 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, what he said. --DanielCD 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- That depends on what you don't know. -Will Beback 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- What? Do you know something about Paroxysm we don't, Will? Ineloquent 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not such a far corner. He hasn't disappeared at all. -Will Beback 04:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Paroxym can you please justify your comment on my page, i at no point mentioned child killing, please leave your own opinions at the door when altering Misplaced Pages - Kenscanna Unknown date
No problem
Moved your comment.
Yes, that was an accident. Sorry. // paroxysm (n) 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. But I am confused?? 21:24, February 17, 2006 Ineloquent (support Paraphilia) What'up with the name?? The conversation above?? FloNight 04:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I suck at logging out.
// paroxysm (n)16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Um
Paroxysm, I wanted to apologize for what I said at the Mfd for WikiProject Pedophilia... that was a battle, and in the heat of battle fingers can fly faster than minds can think. But no excuse. The main thing that irritated me about the MfD was that I knew it might compromise my ability to be seen as NPOV in future... enh, what can I say. I look forward to working with you in future. Herostratus 07:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure what you're apologizing for so clearly you don't have to apologize for it. :-)
// paroxysm (n)16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your voting!
Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Misplaced Pages and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.
If you feel I can help you or Misplaced Pages as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
AID
 |
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Contact lens was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help… |
Your userpage
Not so hot. Ashibaka tock 14:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Lolicon
There is another stawpoll on the disputed offensive image currently underway at Talk:Lolicon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
List of shock sites
Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Userboxes
I did a little general clean-up on your userboxes. However, Misplaced Pages wouldn't let me save the page until I had removed two sites from the page (it has a spam blacklist) so I tried to go around that as well as I could. — Nathan / 03:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Arms of South Georgia.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. -- 11:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Brass Eye logo.png
Hello, Paroxysm. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Brass Eye logo.png) was found at the following location: User:Paroxysm/boxes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
-2007-05-15T07:18:00.000Z-Image:Brass_Eye_logo.png){kind=link}
Notability
I'm of a shared opinion of the non-notability of GC but some of the comments people made about it, you were right to correct them, as they were not appropriate adjectives and were used flagrantly and chastisingly without any evidence. I'm sorry no one else saw fit to correct them at the time. Tyciol (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)