User talk:22spears/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 22spears! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Roundish ⋆tc) 01:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This article may already need assistance from other editors, as you will see from the recent activities. --86Sedan 01:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you're talking about. I have left a message in the talk page of that @Mysecretgarden guy.
- Some of his edits seem reasonable, but others are clearly inappropriate. I will take a look at that O.U.R. page and see if I can solve some issues that it has, maybe that will make him happy. 🔥 22spears 🔥 04:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
An edit that may interest you
Over at List of pedophile advocacy organizations, I have corrected some issues with phrasing. I'd appreciate you go over these changes, and add to consensus. --86Sedan 11:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Roll back of proper, important corrections to the Chronophilia page
Dear 22spears, circa May 7th, you made a rollback of revisions to the chronophilia page, citing the reason as "too many unsourced changes." I would like to note that all of the changes and revisions were indeed sourced. What is more, the source for the majority of them ( and there were only about 4, all concentrated on the same area of error in the existing page ) were & are a pair of psychological doctors already frequently cited as main sources for both the chronophilia and other related (e.g. the ephebophilia ) page. The changes made, which went unchallenged for the better part of two days, and which another moderator/editor kindly and appropriately edited/corrected minor errors in the sourced citation of, are very important because they correct glaring inaccuracies (some that even contradict other material on wikipedia and on the chronophilia page itself ) and even fallacies on the chronophilia page. The inaccuracies that were corrected, in an unedited state, mar both the accuracy and credibility of Wikipedia. They were blatant inaccuracies that virtually anyone with a background in psychology or human biology would note, and that even many laymen can spot. The chronophilia are, as the existing article already states, primarily determined by Tanner stage, not by a specific age, though certain Tanner stages tend to correspond with certain ages. It is common knowledge that, by age 18, the average Western Industrial citizen has already attained Tanner stage 5, and has become a teleiophilia focus. Dr. Seto's & Dr. Blanchard's research and observations acknowledge this, and were cited. If there were any flaws in the formatting of the citations, it is of course entirely proper for editors to edit and correct those errors, but to omit the revisions entirely, when they are both factual, corrective and sufficiently sourced, has an air of activist editing and even fact suppression. Here is the full information AND quoted material for the Dr. Michael Seto citations, which also reference the related & cited works of Dr. Ray Blanchard ( both prominent in the field, both frequently cited on existing chronophilia and related pages ): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293334555_Hebephilic_Sexual_Offending January 2016 DOI:10.1007/978-1-4939-2416-5_3 In book: Sexual offenders: Predisposing antecedents, assessments, and management (pp.29-44)Publisher: SpringerEditors: Amy Phenix, Harry Hoberman Authors: Skye Stephens at Saint Mary's University Skye Stephens Saint Mary's University Michael C Seto at University of Ottawa Michael C Seto University of Ottawa.
Dr. Seto is directly quoted therein stating the followsing: "In the clinical literature, hebephilia has often been (impre-cisely and thus confusingly) equated to a sexual preference in adolescents, which is typically defined as the developmen-tal period between the ages of 12 and 18. This wide age range is problematic as it would include pubescent children... along with sexually mature teenagers who could be easily confused with young adults. A sexual preference in those in late adolescence who show many signs of sexual maturity (Tanner stage 4) or who are sexually mature (Tanner stage 5) is not representative of hebephilia; instead, it can be described as ephebophilia or teleiophilia (Hames & Blanchard, 2012)... older adolescents are reproductively viable and the fact that typically men are sex-ually attracted to older adolescents, as reflected in self-report, psychophysiological, and pornography use studies (Freund, Seeley, Marshall, & Glinfort, 1972; Symons, 1979). (Chart, Table 1, Tanner 5: Secondary sex characteristics reach full maturity: 17 and older (sexually mature) Teleiophilia )... Though typical men are sexually interested in youthfulness, they are also sexually interested in cues of sexual maturity, including adult size, full breasts, and waist-to-hip ratio approaching 0.70 (Buss, 1994). As a result, men are most sexually attracted to older adolescent and young adult women (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992),... Additionally, some labs may use stimuli that include adolescents in Tanner stage 4, which means that they would only be able to detect the presence of ephebophilia, which is not a paraphilia (Hames & Blanchard, 2012)... there were two limitations of this research. First, the offenders were distinguished by victim age rather than maturation status of victims, which would likely increase misclassification. For example, some 14 year olds and more 15 year olds would be expected to be postpubescent, and thus offenders who had an ephebophilic or teleiophilic sexual preference could be misclassified as potentially hebephilic...". An extensive reference citation section is also provided. The above statements are all from Dr. Michael Seto, & cite the (already cited in wikipedia articles ) works of Dr.s Blanchard & Hames. These statements clarify the real parameters of chronophilia, distinguish what is and ISN'T paraphilia, and correct some of the sweeping errors and inaccuracies of the chronophilia page & of some related pages. These additions and revisions are ESSENTIAL if the Wikipedia pages in question are to be accurate, providing correct and accurate information, rather than (potentially dangerous) disinformation and inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4101:E4E0:28B2:3BE:A47F:1F67 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, any content written on that article must be in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style and our standard ways of doing citations. I didn't revert your edits because they were counterfactual, I did so because they were written in a way that was utterly incompatible with this website's policies. 🔥 22spears 🔥 02:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll. Thank you. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Greetings!
Yeah, the vibes on that MAP AfD are not rootin tootin. I feel like I've said all I want to say there. I'm glad there's someone doing the work you do, even if the Wikipedia community may not be ready for it. The fact that a viable article can exist for debate, regardless of the outcome, is something.
I notice your user page says you want to edit articles on ancient Greek. Have you seen the daimon article? I understand the concept became twisted into the modern idea of demons as evil beings. On that note, I've been wanting to write content for the Demonolatry article instead of leaving it just as a redirect to black magic; reliable sources seem sparse if any, though. Casdmo (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Casdmo The daimon article seems interesting, I will see if I can do anything for it in the future. About the Demonolatry page, I would recommend that you try writting about Demonolatry first as a section of Demonology. If the section gets too big or start looking too off-topic for the article, you could split it into an article of its own, this is what WP:WHENSPLIT suggests. It's hard for me to say much about this topic in specific because the sources relating to Demonolatry are pretty scarce. 🔥 22spears 🔥 02:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Stigma of pedophilia for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stigma of pedophilia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Nomination of Predator Poachers for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predator Poachers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)- We edit-conflicted on placing the block, so instead I'll just note that I fully support this. This user appears to be here to push a fringe, pro-paedophilia point of view, not to build an encyclopaedia. Most blatantly in their creation of minor-attracted person, stigma of pedophilia, and User:22spears/Todd Nickerson. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- The only thing I wish you’d done differently, PMC, is logged this as a GENSEX action. Courcelles (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
It's a shame what has happened to you
You can rest assured that you are in the right, and that the book-burners are nothing but permanently-online cowards who disguise their colloquial-tier prejudice as rules-based "skepticism" and "deboonking" hobbyism. This is why Wikipedia is well known for its complete inability to handle any number of controversial topics, and why single-purpose editing is necessary for the safety of serious researchers. My email is listed in my profile. --86Sedan 10:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Don't worry, man. I'm not Jesus Christ, I'm just some dude on the internet. Writing about topics relating to this subject without making people misunderstand you is never easy. But either way, if the block changes to gensex, I'm just gonna move on and write about other things that I'm interested in. In any case, the world hasn't ended anyway. 🔥 22spears 🔥 19:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
22spears (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Since the reason for the block issued by PMC was related only to my edits that took place in sex-related pages, I'm asking for this block to be changed to a WP:GENSEX topic ban. As WP:TBAN says, "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive". For context, I was polite for both admins and regular users in the ANI (no personal attacks, spoke my mind without offending anyone), I was never blocked for anything until this happened, and the idea of a topic ban was already suggested by GhostOfDanGurney at my ANI discussion and Courcelles here on this talk page. I have interests in editing Fritz Wunderlich (I have already done some changes in that page and contributed in the talk page) and other topics related to Greek literature, as User:Casdmo had invited me to edit recently. I'm a good-faith user and I have a lot of interets ouside the topic where people have accused me of POV-pushing. 🔥 22spears 🔥 19:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
{{subst:Contact Arbcom if you want. But no admin will ever unblock you.}} Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
🔥 22spears 🔥 19:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- That’s not what I said at all. Courcelles (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- What did you mean by saying you wish PMC had "logged this as a GENSEX action"? Casdmo (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- You said "the only thing I wish you’d done differently, PMC, is logged this as a GENSEX action" on the block section of this talk page. Did you mean something different than a topic ban? 🔥 22spears 🔥 20:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. She should have logged it as an arbitration enforcement site ban, rather than a single admin block. Courcelles (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)