User talk:Michael B. Trausch/Archive-2007

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Michael B. Trausch. 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.

An explanation of my actions

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome!

Hello, Michael B. Trausch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Xiner (talk, email) 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Adolescence

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your recent edit to Adolescence (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits on Adolescence

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Nateland. I understand how you feel, but please understand that few will come to your defense when you cannot keep your cool. We must remain civil at all times, even against vandals. Xiner (talk, email) 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are getting so upset over the editing on the Adolescence article. I'm not defending what Dr Sax says, but you can not simply delete it because you don't like it. Doubleday is one of the worlds largest book publishers, it should be no problem for you to get a copy of his book at a bookstore or at the library and read for yourself what he has to say. As I said on the talkpage, if you have evidence that refutes him, by all means WP:Be Bold and edit the article. However, I might reccomend that you read his book. It may change your mind, and teach you a few new things (both on this topic and many others). Finally, you can not simply delete text because you disagree with it, or because someone else altered what you said. Just remember that every time you make an edit that WP reminds you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." (check out the bottom of the page the next time you edit one.) Happy editing to you, --Illuminato 04:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, I think you should post your text on the article's talk page, so that stylistic and POV issues can be ironed out in a central place (e.g., stats from the other side, don't capitalize words for emphasis). Illuminato, I disagree that we should rely on one authority for the statements in our articles. Xiner (talk, email) 21:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, you said on the adolescence talk page that you know you shouldn't be deleting the information you disagree with, yet you continue to do it. I know you are young, and that you are new to WP, but now I know that you are aware it is wrong, so please stop. Thanks, and happy editing --Illuminato 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Nateland, please be more careful in your edits. On the adolescent sexuality page in one of you edits you wrote: "According to Ponton Lynn, a proponent against sex between adolescents." There are several things wrong with this sentence. To begin with, it is not a complete sentence; it lacks a verb. Secondly, her name is Lynn Ponton, not Ponton Lynn. Also, I'm not quite sure what a proponent against is. I think you mean an opponent. Finally, and most importantly, if you have ever read any of her books you would know that she is not opposed to consensual sex between older adolescents, provided that they are prepared for it based on the guidelines she sets out in one of her books. You can not simply ascribe a position to her when you have clearly never read anything shes ever written. In the future, please be more careful and do your research before you post. WP is not a place for you to place your own opinions on any topic. --Illuminato 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing, I've read the discussion. You can't order me to do anything, (oh, what did you call him?), bucko. Don't waste our time and vandalize wikpedia with blank sections. if you want info on there about religious views and other countries views, then add them. dont put stupid blank sections it.

Reference

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I see you have some problems with references... please test them on the sandbox instead than using a live article ;) also, you may wish to search on the Help:Link section of the help. Please do not use html tags ! --Raistlin 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, there, and welcome to my talk page. I only have one thing to ask here: Please “thread” messages here when one is after another. You can use the colon (“:”) at the beginning of a line to indent it one level. Thanks a million, and I look forward to reading your comments! —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rrtrent500

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, just wondering what that final warning template was for? The user created an article about a non-notable web site; I speedied it. And he made one unconstructive edit to Microsoft. Was there something else that I'm not seeing, like more nonsense articles? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the user’s history log, there were two bot reversions and one manual one. That’s three reversions by my count, and the fact that they all happened in a extremely short time indicates (to me) lack of good-faith editing—in addition to the account being less than two days old, that seems like a red-flag. That’s what the final warning template was for. :-/ —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that the bot edits don't count...the bot was upset by the URLs that he was adding to his article about a web site, so it reverted them as possible spam. When you discount the bot edits, that leaves one unconstructive edit, to Microsoft, plus an article about a non-notable web site...but I believe that the article was arguably a good faith edit. Could you remove that warning, please? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have removed the warning and will give bots a lighter “weight” in the future when considering what warning(s) to give a user. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks. :-) I've got the option set to auto-watch a page every time I edit it, and I saw your revert of the warning message. Yeah, you can't always count bot edits, because bots are basically idiots. Useful idiots, and pretty accurate overall...but you have to look at what the bot reverted to make sure that it was actually vandalism. And for the article, there's a strong possibility that it was a good faith effort to contribute to the project. So really just one vandalism...and he's already got the warning for it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for “checking” me. :-) —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

You sent me a message about violating copyright... but i have no recollection of doing so.

I don't think i have even UPLOADED any images before.

Could you please clarify this?

Nateland 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Images are not the only copyrighted material—text is, as well. You do not need to upload an image to violate copyright. The web site you copied from is Copyright © 1996-2004 SIECUS. Please restate the information in your own words before including it in the article. Thanks! Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

please see the discussion on adolescent sexuality, the page contains PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA, from the CDC and the Kaiser family Foundation, this is being used PURELY for informational purposes and represents a LARGE addition i made to the article on adolescent sexuality to cut down on the POV, and make it include more data from reputable sources. Nateland 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already been there. However, the copyright notice on the web site is “Copyright © 1996-2004 SIECUS.” Remember, we’re all here for the same goal—to create a wonderful encyclopedia that is available to everyone. Just remember that your contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License—which means that you cannot copy from a web site where the content is copyrighted, as in the case of the SIECUS web site. Their web site makes no mention of the data being public domain.

Can I have an administrator’s help on this one, please? —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the information on this talk page (“excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?”) and the Adolescent sexuality, Talk:Adolescent sexuality, and User talk:Nateland pages, as well—I would love to be corrected if I am wrong. I see no information on the [web site in question that releases any of its content from copyright restrictions. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

here's some more copyright info

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The study data which I added IS from the public domain or is granted for educational use I am pretty sure, if you want me to paraphrase it then tell me so and I will, just don't suddenly revert it,

If the centers for disease control publishes data then it is AUTOMATICALLY in the public domain, the siecus website just has a brief summary of the data STRAIGHT from those study reports.

And the KFF data i am fairly sure is usable under fair use, that should be the only thing i would have to paraphrase.

check the links on http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html Nateland 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.kff.org/newsroom/howtocite.cfm here is the KFF copying guidelines, however online reprinting is not mentioned, but linking is allowed, So i think that paraphrasing would be alright.

Essentially, yes, you need to paraphrase. Facts--no matter who produces them--cannot be copyrighted, but the presentation can be and is. Now, if the words were directly from a CDC report then I think that the report is public domain, but it would be a bad idea to copy directly anyway; the information should be integrated into to article. The revert is perfectly correct, though. Rather than working from a page which contains a copyright violation, just work from the clean version and add the information to it; then, there will be no problem. --Sopoforic 08:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ok sure

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yes ok, good idea. now once that's done all i've got to worry about is the POV in the article and it's IDENTICLE copy in the main article on adolescence (Yes i know, Illuminato created the main article in what me and another person percieve as a 'duplication of efforts', not to be too POV'd but he refused to allow the adolescent sexuality section in the main article to be a redirect to the main article on adolescent sexuality (He CREATED it for crying out loud), and i've tried to get him to discuss making it into a summary but nooooooooo he hasn't responded and instead has been busy making 'minor' edits here and there.)

On this particular matter your help would be appreciated, especially if he deletes my paraphrases etc. data once it's in the article (Which iexpect he will)

Nateland 09:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Warning: Saturday, January 20, 2007

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Please Respect Copyright!

You have vandalized the Adolescent sexuality article by violating Wikipedia’s Copyright policy—your changes which violated copyright were removed. Please remember that everything you find on the Internet is copyrighted, and so you cannot copy and paste from somewhere else to here. This is a severe thing—copyright is generally very strictly enforced in any country with Copyright law.

When you want to write about something you’ve just read, please do not let what you’ve read dictate what you’re going to say. Using your own words is the best way to avoid seeing this message again. Thank you!

This notice was placed here by Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Please see your response to your question on my talk page. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone else here (Sopoforic) added some helpful information to the topic on my talk page. That might help out a bit. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: This dispute has already been resolved via the use of paraphrasing and alternative links to the data.

adolescent sexuality

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I saw your post on the talk page saying you were rewriting it. I just did a big rework of it. You may want to check that out first. --Illuminato 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read through it again, and it is better than it was—however, the works cited in the article have a heavy slant in them which seemingly fails to attribute various mental health and psychological conditions to their direct contributors. Being a topic that I am rather close to in my own life, it is a bit disturbing to see much of these “facts” being passed off as such; they are hardly neutral. I am also having a hard time with the verifiability of many of the sources mentioned, but that is a personal problem in reality—I simply do not have the ability to get to the books that are mentioned throughout the article.

For the moment, I am searching through journals and doctoral dissertations that relate to the studies of adolescent sexuality, though those are largely biased as well, mostly towards North American sexual development, attitudes, and behaviors. There are a few other studies that deal with oriental countries, as well, which show large differences in attitudes and the like. Sexuality is a project in and of itself as it pertains to Wikipedia, anyway—like any subject that deals with the complexity of human abstraction, ideas, attitudes, and behaviors. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree with my opinion on this fd0man, I have placed a final warning template on Illuminato's user page so that he knows if he makes that 3rd so called 'revision', then he'll be reported for a 3RR violation, You might want to check out the links i placed to the CDC page,

http://www.cdc.gov/Healthyyouth/YRBS/slides/2005YRBSslides.pdf

or the earlier siecus page i mentioned, it has plenty of purely (Or as close as they can get) scientific and statistical data from surveys of adolescents THEMSELVES and such, so if you find a study you like on that page, than i guess just google it etc. to get its original page.

The most NPOV resource for this topic I know of is the CDC, (Hell, they even call it a 'risk' behaviour, but that's standard nowadays and the rest is pure statistics ,thank god)

Well, I hope this helps Nateland 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the response to Nateland. He is only 13, which I think explains a lot of his actions. I hope he will listen to you. I'm afraid when I ask him to 'settle down' he only sees it as a personal attack. Your comments were well said and, I hope, effective. Thanks again, and thanks for your work on the article. --Illuminato 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew it'd come down to this....

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, i ended up reporting illuminato for a 3RR violation, I hope it goes through and he gets what he deserves... (Some time 'off' from wikipedia) and that we can productively revise the article now.

P.S. thnaks for your help with the paraphrasing last night, it was gratefully appreciated :-)

Nateland 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

final warning for civility?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Um.... how?

I simply warned Illuminato about his repeated reversions and editing of large amounts of data in the article.

Maybe I acted a bit brash but he had repeatedly reverted the article AFTER I warned him not to and to discuss pages on the discussion page FIRST.

Compare the two, he deleted large chunks of data etc. etc.

I am sorry if it seemed uncivil but I only did what I think had to be done as he has been reverting and 'editing' these articles for some time now and it has significantly slowed down improvement of the article.

Nateland 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated a few times now, both by Illuminato and others, including myself, there is no fault that I can see with Illuminato’s edits to the Adolescent sexuality article. Illuminato has been around for awhile, has been nothing but civil and polite to you, and has explained his reverts satisfactorily. I do not see a problem with his reverts.

We’re here to improve Wikipedia—not bicker about and behave as children. I have asked you and suggested to you that you settle down so that you don’t get banned, to no avail. I am afraid that if it continues, I will not have any choice but to report you to an administrator myself, because much of your action and discussion is beyond not fruitful. I have no like nor dislike for either you or Illuminato—it just happens that Illuminato is doing nothing wrong that I can see from my vantage point. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

look, I simply am trying to improve it.

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Only reason why I even BEGAN trying to fix the article on adolescent sexuality (and originally the section in the other article as i've said many times before). Is because i was SHOCKED!!! to see the enourmous volumes of unbiased data and 'expert' opnions all coming from one source... Even though we have fixed the article a bit, illuminato Continues to edit it.

He deleted entire sections. Which i thought were quite acceptable, now maybe you don't agree. But In my opinion it looks as if Illuminato is trying to push his own agenda... just take a few minutes to look below the surface of things.

Anyways, see the call to action on the talk page for my other response.

Best wishes Nateland 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, you are continuing to act contrary to the civility policy. Your tone, composition, word choice, and attitude are all indicative of someone who is not heeding the warnings which are set out. In the past sixteen hours, you have violated the copyright policy and the civility policy, as well as participating in an edit war. I encourage you to stop editing now—and take the time to carefully read how to edit, the civility policy, the copyright policy, the verifiability policy, and the neutrality policy.

In case it isn’t already clear: opinions do not matter here on Wikipedia, because they are contrary to the policies set forth that I have already referred you to. Facts, verification, and neutrality are what matters, as well as respecting others both inside and outside of Wikipedia by being civil and not causing infringements of copyright. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 21:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes i Know that...

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Check the adolescent sexuality talk page for my response to Illuminato.

You see, In MY opinion and many other peoples opinions, CDC data is quite valid (It is the Federal Governments health department after all, and has a long list of things they've done and discovered etc. etc. etc.), and so is a Henry Kaiser Family foundation survey which got put on a page in SIECUS (SIECUS is a MAJOR organization on sexual education etc. in the united states), and I am pretty darn sure that trying to equalize the amount of represented views on either side of a conflict is quite alright.

But with the Leonard Sax data, I have asked illuminato to provide easily peer accessible some online links to some of Leonard's data. Yet he hasn't done that and as far as I can tell, (He hasn't responded to my newest response yet as of typing this so i am going on past replies of his) he has only replied saying WP:Be Bold.

I KNOW thats a valid guideline, but I just havn't had the time to get the book, and unless Doubleday books releases Why Gender Matters online or in my local newspaper, then I won't be able to get to it anytime soon.

So.. i am asking Illuminato to do a service to ME and the REST of us who can't get his book and provide some online links to back him up or that have his data in them.

That's all, and that's it... I hope you understand. (I am not out to bicker like a child, But I WILL take every reasonable measure i can to make sure that the article followes wikipedia guidelines and is acceptable to other people on this site, which there is a history of NOT being so for this topics articles and sections. And if it includes posting a 3RR warning.... then SO BE IT!) Nateland 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

proposed changes/additions to aodlescent sexuality article.

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Text removed

Please do not duplicate content across talk pages. I can see that you added this to the Adolescent sexuality talk page. Thanks. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am Not harrasing wikipedians

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

despite what you think, I am NOT harrasing wikipedians, I simply told one of them a couple of times to clarify and be honest about the edits they made, and the other one i accidently thought had uneedingly reverted one of my edits and i asked them to be more careful in the future.

I find your constant picking me out for civility warnings REALLY ANNOYING, Yes i was using CAPS. Becuase it makes me MAD!.

Why odn't you ask those users if they thought they were being harrased?, BEFORE going onto my tlak page nad posting civility warnings... i am Simply reminding users to discuss changes on the talk page, and to just let that edit rest for the night until more people can review it instead of reverting it back to it's original state.

See talk:adolescent sexuality for more details

Yours truly, Nateland 06:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have only given you two. You have henceforth been referred for outside review by a neutral third party; failing the effectiveness of that, as per Wikipedia policy, you will be referred to the RfC queue to be looked at under rather heavy scrutiny. Please, play nice, or do not play at all. You are being disruptive and rude, and I take extreme offense to these activities, particularly against other third parties (such as 66.91.115.201, who you were unnecessarily rude to). Remember, you do not own any of the information here, and you cannot make absolute demands of other users.

Believe you me, I am quite angry at you right now: I have managed to waste nearly a full day trying to sort things out since your name came across the list of potential vandals. I certainly could have been helping other Wikipedians and being (I should hope) more productive. You do not see me shouting at you. In fact, I am attempting to be quite kind. However, enough is enough. You will be reviewed before long by an administrator.

Kind regards. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

look!

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was not unnecassarily rude to that IP.

Maybe i said a few 'bad' words, but that was only to ghet my point across in a more easily understandable way... swears are.. .after all.... some of the most emotionally charged and multi-use words in the english language.

Trust me, i'm angry at YOU as well, I've wasted almost a full day trying to GET YOU to understand I am not harrasing people, In one day i've lost countless hours because of your constant harrasing me...

If it's anyone whom I think needs to be reviewed it's YOU!. you have NO right to post an uncivility warning because I reported a user for a 3RR violation.

Maybe i didn't put down EVERY template for that, but i have only been editing for a few weeks now (seriously at least and not just occasional spell checks).

So Please try to be understanding, i hope we can reach an agreement.

you're wasting MY time and I AM wasting yours in return, it's the logical consequence of accusing me of uncivility.

And I think that i put down sufficient warnings, just look at all the notes i posted on ppl's talk pages and on adolescence etc. THAT IS PLENTY ofwarning and reminders not to recklessly revert etc. Nateland 06:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Illuminato & User:Nateland

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You7 have entered the discussion between these editors over Adolescent sexuality. Please see Talk:Adolescent_sexuality#Note_to_illuminato.. I have previously moved the relevant paras to the US section myself to have User:Illuminato put it back into the general intro. I also added {{globalise}} and it has been removed in the past. His comment that:

Nateland, There are three doctors quoted in the lead with four medical degrees. If they say something about the psychological health of adolescents I am going to believe them before I believe a kid without even a high school diploma. Just because they all live in the US does not mean they focus all their attention on the US.

appears disingenuous to me. These medical practitioners are writing to a US audience about a US situation. I wonder why he is treating User:Nateland as he is. Paul foord 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of these people seem to be going at each others’ throats; User:Nateland in particular is being rather inflammatory to others and it is easy to become incensed at User:Nateland. I am at a loss about what to do over this article and these people at this point. I have requested appropriate reviews and protections until things settle down, and hopefully that will help. However, this is the first situation that I have seen like this, myself. :-( —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Final Warning

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

nateland, you are not an administrator. You have no authority to place that warning on my talk page. You can not ban me from editing any more than I can ban you. The edits I am making are not a personal vendetta. I am not out ot get you. I am just trying to make WP better. Please read the comments on the talk page where I outline some of the problems with your version of the article. I didn't include them all, as I am not out to embarrass you. Please try to keep your cool. --Illuminato 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know i AM trying to keep my cool, and ANYONE can report a 3RR violation it says so right on the guidelines page, trust me, i had good reason to report you. quit fussing, it's REALLY annoying.

And no, you're doing what I did early on in wikipedia, recklessly screwing up the adolescent sexuality page just so that you can inject your own biased 'facts'.

This is my opinion and that's FINAL. Nateland 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

yes i know, i still sometimes forget to.

Adolescent sexuality article

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your comment. The story started with unbalanced additions taking over the adolescent psychology section of the adolescence article. Moving it to a separate article hopefully will eventually allow something more balanced to develop. I just added a legal aspects section, but a religious aspects section would be useful in the future. Fight the battles on limited fronts, withdraw when you need, you can always come back later. Regarding Islam, I am not very knowledgable - I dropped a note at the Talk:Islamic sexual jurisprudence page. Paul foord 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It’s your talk page…

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

… but it is considered to be in bad taste to remove items from it without going through the process of archiving them. Mind you, that’s not an official policy, but do remember that your user and user talk pages are not your property—they’re still property of the community. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning on civility: Sunday, January 21, 2007

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This is Your Final Warning

Michael B. Trausch/Archive-2007, you have been warned multiple times about acting in a fashion unbecoming a Wikipedia editor. It is imperative that you stop acting in this manner or you will be blocked from editing here. Working with other editors on Wikipedia is a privilege—not a right—and for every one person creating problems or acting uncivil, it disturbs a large number of others who are simply trying to help out. This is your final warning with regard to your behavior; further infraction or disturbance will lead to a block by a Wikipedia Administrator without further warning.

This notice was placed here by Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Technically, this is the second final warning that you have received from me. However, you removed the first one; it is only fair for me to put it back as you are harassing Wikipedians. Please say what you need to say to them nicely, or do not say anything to them at all. You are, at this time, being reported for acts of harm against the environment we are all sharing. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

despite what you think, I am NOT harrasing wikipedians, I simply told one of them a couple of times to clarify and be honest about the edits they made, and the other one i accidently thought had uneedingly reverted one of my edits and i asked them to be more careful in the future. Although when i realized i had forgot to login i promptly posted an apology to their talk page.

I find your constant picking me out for civility warnings as undue Harrasment via templates.

Why don't you ask those users if they thought they were being harrased?, BEFORE going onto my talk page and posting civility warnings... i am Simply reminding some users to discuss changes on the talk page, and to just let that edit rest for the night until more people can review it instead of reverting it back to it's original state.

See talk:adolescent sexuality for more details

Yours truly, Nateland 06:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it on my talk page…

I have only given you two. You have henceforth been referred for outside review by a neutral third party; failing the effectiveness of that, as per Wikipedia policy, you will be referred to the RfC queue to be looked at under rather heavy scrutiny. Please, play nice, or do not play at all. You are being disruptive and rude, and I take extreme offense to these activities, particularly against other third parties (such as 66.91.115.201, who you were unnecessarily rude to). Remember, you do not own any of the information here, and you cannot make absolute demands of other users.

Believe you me, I am quite angry at you right now: I have managed to waste nearly a full day trying to sort things out since your name came across the list of potential vandals. I certainly could have been helping other Wikipedians and being (I should hope) more productive. You do not see me shouting at you. In fact, I am attempting to be quite kind. However, enough is enough. You will be reviewed before long by an administrator.

Kind regards. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I have only this to say: Harassment involves tone of voice, and frequency of contact. You have contacted far too many people with an offensive tone over the past two days. When I say that you are acting in a manner “unbecoming a Wikipedia editor,” I didn’t mean that you were being nice and handing flowers to everyone. I have asked you to calm down multiple times in the past two days. You are letting your temper become disruptive in this community, and that is not something that I will sit back and watch without at the very least letting you know what you are doing. You will not make friends like this—here or IRL. Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Pardon the third alteration for this block; but I meant to point out to you that despite your “view” of warnings, they are required by Wikipedia policy before attempting to recruit outside help or administration to solve a problem. I am sure that you can see why: It is unethical to report someone without at least notifying them that you are doing so, and without appropriate warnings and attempts at a resolution to the situation. I have nothing else to say—sorry, tiredness is kicking my rear end. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

look!

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was not unnecassarily rude to that IP.

Maybe i said a few 'bad' words, but that was only to ghet my point across in a more easily understandable way... swears are.. .after all.... some of the most emotionally charged and multi-use words in the english language.

Trust me, i'm angry at YOU as well, I've wasted almost a full day trying to GET YOU to understand I am not harrasing people, In one day i've lost countless hours because of your constant harrasing me...

If it's anyone whom I think needs to be reviewed it's YOU!. you have NO right to post an uncivility warning because I reported a user for a 3RR violation.

Maybe i didn't put down EVERY template for that, but i have only been editing for a few weeks now (seriously at least and not just occasional spell checks).

So Please try to be understanding, i hope we can reach an agreement.

you're wasting MY time and I AM wasting yours in return, it's the logical consequence of accusing me of uncivility.

You were unnecessarily rude to that IP address. Your language and tone were abusive.

Emotionally charged language is not language that will solve any mature, adult dispute. It will take time, but you will learn that when you are required to become a productive member of society. You may certainly ask for a review of my behavior if you wish; I have attempted to be as kind and rational as possible with you as one possibly can be. You’ve no right to demand that anyone visit an article’s talk page before being bold and editing, nor do you have any right to bite off the head of a newcomer and potentially scare him or her off.

Your actions are illogical at best, and are incongruent with the goals of this project at worst. I seriously believe that you need to review the five basic rules of Wikipedia, and gain some respect for your fellows and peers. You have real chutzpah to treat people like this on a public site.

I’ve no wish to be harmful, nor do I have any wish to take out any of my anger and frustration on you—or anyone else for that matter. We all have a more important job to be doing, but that job cannot be done with emotionally-flared words being flung around at people as if they were nothing at all. Emotionally charged words only serve to expose a personal weakness in the person who uses them, as well as attempt to ignite personal weaknesses in others who receive them. They cause conflict, warring, and even harsher, more emotionally charged things to be flung back and forth. It is an illogical process to even begin.

The only person whose time is being wasted here is me—I did not ask you to be rude, or infringe on the copyrights of others. The time that you are spending being defensive isn’t even necessary—nobody here is attacking you, and I, for one, have no wish to attack or make enemies of anyone—here on Wikipedia, or anywhere else on the Internet or in real life, for that matter.

However, there is a certain moral duty that anyone who witnesses ill-treatment of others must step up to. You were introduced to me because you were flagged as having made a copyright violation and vandalizing an article. And now, we are here because you are flinging emotionally charged words around. All that is happening here is that I am asking you to behave in a civil fashion in accordance with the policy that asks the same of you. I am not asking all that much; I am giving you the respect of being civil on my end. Please return that respect. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, i understand what you think, But i've spent 14 hours and 10 minutes as of now in front of this computer, endlessly trying to propose compromises and resolve disputes.

I'll soon be going to bed as it's 2:13 A.M. where i live and i want to be able to actually get up tommorow.

However, like I said, i mean't NO maliciousness whatsoever and was not using those words against that user. I simply used it to state my annoyance after (By then) approximately 10 or so hours of unending word on this article.

forgive if I made a mistake but I think that once in a while an exceptiopn can be made. And no I am not going to report you for your behaviour as I don't find it malicious and I understanf what you are thinking, so I am simply trying to clear it up.

I was simply reminding that user to be more careful and I hoped that by using emotional words It would go across easier, and apparently it did because he has stopped reverting. 9Or he logged off etc.) And i must say that i only asked people check the talk page is because 99% of the time they jusy IMMEDIATELY revert without even discussing it or clearly and/or honestly outlining their revisions.

If you check the talk page you'll see BOATLOADS of my explanations, none of which (As of recently, i've tried to be more careful) are substantial and done without a consensus, I only did what I thought would be useful for people to review in the morning, people HAVE complained about the lead in the past,

anyways, this is MY explanation of my actions. -Hope it satifies you Nateland 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture war and adolescent sexuality

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mike, re the discussion at User_talk:Fd0man#User:Illuminato_.26_User:Nateland, you have been caught up in the Culture war. Paul foord 07:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see where the association can be made, there.

Hopefully, it is not in vein; I do not believe that User:Nateland has hostile intentions, and hopefully the time spent trying to calm the situation down a bit is worthwhile. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

adolescent page protection

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I know you requested, and subsequently were granted, page protection for the adolescent sexuality article. It seems to me that the lead section seems to be the biggest sticking point here, so I want you to know that I have a proposal for moving forward in a peaceable manner. You are welcome to participate. --Illuminato 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked over it and it looks just fine. It is going to take a while before things simmer down. I am going to guess that this protection is going to be there for at least a few days. I hated the idea of requesting it, but it was a logical first step. If, after the protection on the article is lifted, there are still issues, then more action will need to be taken.

The best course of action for the time being would seem to be just leaving things alone there and letting them simmer down. Hopefully, they will not flare back up again; it seems that the only opposition to anything is coming from a single source, and it has long since passed the point of disruptive. :-( —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

.... disruptive?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just look at the talk page, I mean... Illuminato.

you justified making spin-offs due to the article being too 'long'? And then when I post my reply you just blanked your talk page....

I am not the only source, there are a few others and Illuminato, you have VERY few allies as well.

The book by Leonard Sax isn't at my local library, (Been lost in DYNIX). And so, I am counting on YOU to provide his information. And if I may....

Let me say this.

You can call my actions whatever you want. I will NOT use an umbrella to cover my intentions so here they are.

Whe I first saw the sexuality section in adolescence i was SHOCKED!. It was COMPLETELY BIASED. Unbelievably so with HARDLY ANYONE trying to stop it. And from there on I made a resolution.

I'll do WHATEVER it takes to make the page as it should be, such a sensitive topic CANNOT be filled with ageism, sexism, intolerance, unchecked pov, centricity, lying, umbrella terms, twisting of wikipedia guidelines, and weasel words without me trying my BEST to fix it...

I believe the opposite of Leonard Sax's and (presumably YOUR views, otherwise I doubt you'd go to the all this trouble to stop my attempts at making the slightest little fix that would go against Leo)

I HARDLY call myself disruptive, my 'behaviour' is warranted sheerly through outrage at YOUR (Illuminato that's you) own use of all the above stated problems to try and keep the article YOUR way.

We all have our views, and mine probably won't change much... if ever, neither will yours I guess. And you HAVE to realize we MUST come to a compromise.

There have been NUMEROUS complaints and suspicions filed by MANY MANY users. You have some supporters to...

In fact, we BOTH have our supporting sides etc.

But your attempts at stifling the most significant discontent with the article are REALLY DISQUIETING!.

fd0man, how can you NOT see the problem with the aritcle?, there are duplicated lines from Leonard Sax ALL OVER multiple articles with even the SLIGHTEST mention of adolescent sexuality. And i am trying my best to act in an orderly fashion with all of the concerns and problems that face this article and others.

YES! I might be 'only' 14 as you put it.... But those four 'experts' don't seem to be very 'professional' to me. As well as other people, and your continued misuse of their quotes do a great deal to lessen their validity on wikipedia, to me. You seem like a mirror image of George W. Bush (Hell, maybe you are... the internet is fairly anonymous)

If you were arguing these 'points' in France or Japan, no one would even give you a SECOND LOOK. So be THANKFUL you have an audience and some supporters for staging your own agenda on this site. But don't and i MEAN it. DO NOT abuse that gift and those supporters.

It'll eventually lead to dislike, and a fall of your OWN reputation. On a closing note to my statement. If you HADN'T practiced all of your techniques such as the ones I listed above, Leonards, Lynn Pontons, and probably ALL THE REST of the morally 'scientific' crew wouls be erased from wikipedia by HORDES of annoyed and suspicious editors.

you've got resources and a reputation... But in my eyes you're wasting them.

Nateland 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the civility warning.

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If Illuminato can erase his ENTIRE talk page, along with any and ALL warnings. And you do NOTHING about it.

Then what right do you have to repost what I regard as an unwarranted warning?. Illuminato removed his for the same reasons, yet you did NOT act against him.

Please respect other users talk pages, and don't make a fuss out of it. No one likes a whiner in disguise (Closest comparison i could make to your actions)

And if you restore my 'warning', then i'll restore Illuminatos talk page AND the warning. And he cannot complain, for someone trying to arbitrate a dispute, you do very little to equalize the weights except stand by saying 'i've had enough of it'...

Well, if you have. Then WHY post on talkpages that I am 'past the point of disruptive' while not doing anything else except posting civility warnings and accusing me of stuff while you say you KNOW I am acting with best intentions?.

First off, I did not “repost” a warning. I gave you a new warning, which I subsequently acted on. However, you continue to carry an attitude and mistreat myself and others. You continue to be degrading, arrogant, and rude. Furthermore, I said that I thought that you were not acting with malice. However, you have gone out of your way to prove me wrong.

Secondly, I merely told you that it was in bad taste to remove things without archiving them. It is not explicitly against any policies here at Wikipedia. It’s just considered to be in bad taste.

Third, there is a difference between cleaning the “User talk:” page, and selectively removing content from it. The latter is more rude by leaps and bounds, for reasons which should be quite apparent.

Finally, I have given you a very large amount of latitude because of both your rather young age, and because my impression of you—at least at first—was that you wanted to be a positively contributing editor to Wikipedia and that you had no malicious intent. From what I can tell, and what this new message to my own “User talk:” page proves, is that if you do not have any malicious intent, you certainly are going out of your way to give people the idea that you do. This is not productive, nor is it helpful or a positive contribution to anything but perhaps your own emotional state.

I have attempted to go out of my way to try to help you become a positively contributing member of this not-so-little society. You repay me with harsh words and threats to vandalize the User talk: page of other people. This is unacceptable behavior. Consider this post an unofficial warning; I have given you more than enough warnings and spent more than enough time to help you understand what is being said by others. It is also becoming apparent to me that an informal review of your behavior in the past week on Wikipedia is not going to be enough to help you to see that you are being disruptive, condescending, and rather rude to those you interact with here. That having been said, I quite simply have run out of patience here. I do not accept mistreatment, and will not tolerate it any further. It is regretful that the time I attempted to spend to help you out was in vein. Good day and good luck. Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)