ZeroZ

Image:AVachss honey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AVachss honey.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 08:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I replied to your comment on my talk page... at my talk page! You may already know this, but many Wikipedians respond to comments at the same place that the original comment was made. Cheers! Joie de Vivre 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

I noticed that in your edit to Incest, you used the backquote (`) to provide bold and italics. This does not work; please use the ordinary quote/apostrophe ('). The way, the truth, and the light 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you ZeroZ 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

We've been working on the Incest article, and so I thought you might be interested to weigh in on a discussion happening at Child sexual abuse. There is a dispute between two camps of editors, one which wants to include stories about children supposedly enjoying sex with adults, another camp which finds it to be given undue weight and factually dubious on account of a lack of followup with the children as adults (among other inconsistencies). I appreciate the clarity with which you edit and suspect that you might have wisdom to impart in this discussion. Check the bottom of the page; Talk:Child sexual abuse if you are interested. Thanks and I hope to edit with you soon! Joie de Vivre 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The water looks good; I'm wading in! ZeroZ 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

Hey, ZeroZ! I don't know exactly why your userpage was on my watchlist. I don't remember adding it. However! Apparently, it is, and I saw you had put your new version of the CSA article there. I haven't read it yet, because I wanted to tell you this first:

Although you can if you want to, you don't have to use your userpage as a sandbox or as a place to write drafts. That is what subpages are for! The links in this message explain the various meanings and uses of the three. You can create a new e-home for your article drafts, and other Wikipedia-related things.

Oh, and if, for whatever reason, you want your userpage to be blank (and redlinked) again, you can go to the userpage link and read the "How do I delete" sections. I hope this is helpful! Happy editing! Joie de Vivre 14:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your valuable contributions to child sexual abuse. It's nice having you around. You've probably already seen these pages, but just in case: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch (worth reading) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch/Watchlist. Lots going on the last few days at Pedophilia, Pro-pedophile activism, and False allegation of child sexual abuse. Lots of clean up needed lots of places. Thanks again!! -Jmh123 06:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusation

"At the moment, their claim is that child sexual abuse is not actually harmful to children."

this is either a fucking ridiculous misintepretation or flat-out intentional lie. I have not at any time made the absurd claim you clearly attribute to me here, and I have repeatedly clarified that I do not hold this belief after being accused of it by ignorant people like you. scientific research has consistently demonstrated that csa confounds with family environment significantly (not to say that child sexual abuse is not usually harmful, but that without statistical control, causal inferences become dubious (thus failing to perform them only helps people who would rather deny the effects.) this is factual, and if you dispute it, you're more than welcome to explain why--it would be much more productive than lying about me.

Bullough (1996) was right when he commented, "It is the ever-present danger of being accused of pedophilia which makes the research [of child sexual abuse] so dangerous and debilitating that few individuals are able to risk it." Thanks to your kind. ~[[kinda]] 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly restrain yourself from using foul language on my page, which I consider harrassment. Your claim that I attributed any "belief" to you or to anyone else is false. You may wish to consult the guidelines on civility. -ZeroZ 05:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an ever-evolving process. No article is ever declared complete. We did good work, but I don't think we were finished by any means. The effects section is still a mess, still POV, and there are still some issues that will come up again in other areas I'm sure. There was an unfortunate series of troll attacks last week--that happens too--but the better the entry is, the less likely it is that trolling is any kind of threat. I think it's important to get some of the old POV out of these articles, because people look to Wikipedia for answers. Fortunately, much has been accomplished already.

Much as I agree with you on many many points, by the way, I disagree with your assessment of the intentions of the edit currently under dispute at child sexual abuse. Believe me it isn't easy to go against the "team". I think there are ways to include the main point--that controlling for variables is important in any scientific research--and still have a NPOV statement on that issue. We'll just have to agree to disagree. For the time being, I'm staying away, as the current behavior on both "sides" is totally counterproductive. Thanks again and I look forward to working with you again. -Jmh123 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You reverted all of Slakr? I thought most of what he did was good. ETA: Duh--I hadn't read the "talk" page yet. I saw you've discussed all your reverts extensively. ETA: Having read all the discussions and looked at the changes again, I see your various points. I did think that the copy editing that he did was good, and was in fact was I was referring to when I said "most of what he did," and that he made some useful suggestions. -Jmh123 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

6 months

Regarding your edit,[1] I wonder if you would take another look. The language of criterion A says:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)[2]

I believe the 6-month period applies to "behaviors" as well; otherwise there would be a conjuction and no comma between "sexually arousing fantasies" and "sexual urges", above. It would look like this: Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies or sexual urges, or behaviors ...

But the language places all three ("fantasies, urges, or behaviors") equally under the qualification "over a period of at least 6 months". I also asked a psychiatrist colleague, who agrees, but I would prefer if you checked for yourself. Cheers, ZeroZ 09:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying this over from my user page, since it's a complicated question. I agree that the sentence could be read the way you suggest; however, the next item says, "The person has acted on these sexual urges...." with no time period indicated. Do you think there is some reason the DSM would distinguish between the behavior of "sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children" over a period of six months absent any urge or fantasy to do so (A), which the punctuation as you interpret it in the context of the full list would indicate, and (B) even a single act of acting on an urge or fantasy to engage with sexual activity with a child? In other words, do you think that the DSM is saying that you have to engage in sexual activity with a child for a period of at least six months, assuming you're doing it without any sexual urge to do it, in order to be diagnosed a pedophile? -Jmh123 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:AVachss honey.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AVachss honey.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:AVachss honey.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:AVachss honey.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

File:AVachss honey.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AVachss honey.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)