User talk:Homologeo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Homologeo, 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. Also, I noticed your interest in Heroes. Feel free to stop by the Heroes WikiProject to meet other editors who contribute to articles related to the show!

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! fmmarianicolon | Talk 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Formatting[edit]

Hi there, thanks for your work on the Heroes episodes. I have a couple of formatting tips for you:

  • Sentences are followed by two spaces (in practice, this doesn't really matter, but I noticed you were changing them back to one space, which isn't necessary)
  • Punctuation marks following episode names go outside the quotes - example: A good way to write the title is "Landslide", but not "The Hard Part," nor "Five Years Gone." Exceptions are when the punctuation mark is part of the title - such as ".07%" and "Run!".

Hope these help! -- Chuq (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote on pedophile activism[edit]

There is currently a (new, official) vote on the issue of whether the anti- and pro- pedophile activism articles should be merged into a single "culture war" article. Having noted your participation in previous discussions on this matter, I thought that I'd invite you to vote. 86.131.41.244 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft version of article in progress[edit]

Hey, I recently asked Jmh123 if he could help me in improving a draft version of the pedophile activism article I'm working on. Given your past edits regarding this subject and your apparent ability to keep a cool head, I thought I'd invite you to take a look and see if you'd like to help, as well.

I think the organization is an improvement, but the article still needs a bit of trimming. I have added some references that I think are relevant and that create a more comprehensive description of some of the arguments, but it might be that some less-relevant sources need to be made more concise or removed. I would appreciate it if we could improve the quality of the draft before we consider implementing the reorganization. I will be without access to the Internet from Thursday until Sunday, so I will be unable to offer imput during that time. But I hope you guys can help me in improving this draft before any major changes are made to the article itself. Thanks! Mike D78 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you around? Mike D78 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

So you know, users:

and friends, are pretty much all (per arbcom) established sockpuppets that were engaged in intensive POV warring. According to user:Thatcher131, these users are likely long-term banned from Wikipedia.

Such users often reincarnate, as new accounts.

The relevance is, that the pupeteer was very active on some pages I see you are active on. If there is suspicious activity, the above may be useful. You might also want to keep an eye on the relevant pages going forward, for new and similar arriving editors. Note that checkuser was not always able to ID the previous socks as commonly managed. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of Events?[edit]

This is from the Anti-pedophile activism page:

The website contributed to the arrest of James P. Finn III of Michigan in late July of the same year. After their first featured "Wikisposure Project" "article of the month" inspired a mailing of fliers throughout Finn's community, reports say that a family member of Finn's then made allegations of illegal online activities. Finn was found with 600 images and 30 videos of children, of which three have lead to charges of child pornography.[13] He faces up to 20 years in jail. [14] In 1998, James Finn III ("Jimf3") was the webmaster of one of the oldest pedophile communities online, BoyChat.[15] He stepped down from this position in January of 1999.[16]

Finn has disputed the idea that BoyChat and other pedophile resources were breeding grounds for child pornography to the media on several occasions. "I have been active on BoyChat for over two years and I've been the webmaster for about 18 months and I've never known such activities to go on," he says. "First, BoyChat strictly enforces rules against such picture trading and against meeting boys. Not only do I and other administrators watch out for this, a very large cadre of regular posters are careful to warn newcomers about the realities of the board".[17]

I am confused as to the order of events. Did Finn first say, "First, BoyChat strictly enforces rules against such picture trading and against meeting boys. Not only do I and other administrators watch out for this, a very large cadre of regular posters are careful to warn newcomers about the realities of the board" and the was arrested. Or was this statement made after his arrest? Jmm6f488 08:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty interesting case, I admit I'm also interested in the order of events. Since other details related to the case don't seem to have been made public as of yet (if they would ever) such as Finn's admitting to or denying downloading the child pornography found on his computer, I'm more prone to believe this is a statement he made on the BoyChat forum the case describes his having posted to. Possibly asking contributors to that forum who would have a greater interest in the case than us (and be more familiar with searching its archives) could turn up whether or not he said something along those lines there. Even if the statement is quoted from him in custody, it sounds like the sort of thing a controversial forum like that would provide as a standard disclaimer. Tyciol 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Boychat has been around for ages, and is a public chat board. In order to remain legal, it enforces a collection of rules, which prohibit using the board for meeting minors, picture trading, graphic depictions of sexual acts, libel, and various other things. So the statement Finn made about Boychat was prior to any of his legal problems, and accurately reflected how the board is run.
PJ then started pressuring BoyChat's ISP's upstream provider, and accusing them publicly of "promoting pedophilia" or whatever. They caved, and threatened to unplug everyone, whereupon a bunch of longstanding Boychat regulars, including Jim, mounted both a fund-raising effort and a search for stable bandwidth. These efforts were successful and Boychat continued to operate.
A person working with PJ then leafleted Jim's neighborhood with fliers calling him a "pedophile activist" and saying he was a danger to children. The local sheriff, rather than investigating this harrassment, decided to investigate Jim instead, stating the opinion that in his professional experience, it was impossible for pedophiles to "resist their urges." He obtained a search warrant, and claims to have raided Jim in the act of downloading the child porn pictures for which he has been charged, which is at the very least a remarkable coincidence rarely seen in law enforcement. The sheriff also characterized a bunch of other stuff on Jim's computer as featuring child-exploitative situations, but since he hasn't been charged for it, it probably wasn't porn. In the past, law enforcement has made such claims about mainstream movies they think appeal to pedophiles, so it's anyone's guess what the other material contained.
I haven't seen anything in the news about the case for weeks, and the last thing I read was Jim's lawyer stating that Jim was innocent of the charges, and that it was their intention to try the case in court, and not in the media.
So that's the sequence of events, based on the news stories I've read, and occasional peeks at stuff posted on PJ and BC. Some have speculated that PJ managed to con Jim into downloading something timed to exactly coincide with the execution of the search warrant. But there's no independent confirmation whether or not that happened. So I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what happens at the trial. Hermitian 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reconsideration of the wikisposure edit[edit]

  • I initially posted this on your userpage by mistake, sorry. Please see the talk page of article in question. Tyciol 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I made this edit and you tagged it. After looking, I realized you were right to do this, and I should have presented the issue to the talk page and gone over how to properly word the addition and present sources for it. In the midst of going over the resulting Xavier-conundrum I've essentially done all the work I was putting off (consider a mix of guilt, hope and irritation to be the driving forces) which I believe might adequately source the addition. I have described the situation on my message to User_talk:Kurykh. As I'm sure the busy moderator cleans his talk page a lot, I can also copy and paste it here if you like. That, or to the anti-pedophile activism talk page. Or actually, since it seems there's a need to reference it in multiple locations (and indeed, possibly for my personal use) do you think perhaps I should host it on my user page? I'm thinking I should avoiding copying and pasting it since Kurykh expressed irritation at how long-winded it was. But it was a complex issue that couldn't really be summarized I feel.

If you have the time to read it all, do you feel that the evidence surrounding this case is adequate enough to support my addition, in its present form or (with your and other wikipedian's aid) a more proper format? Even though I think Xavier was wrong to remove it (this could have been possibly resolved and the tag removed, or the addition removed if sourcedness was judged inadequate) I now see that it wasn't as good an addition as I had originally thought, and so think it is better not to add anything until it is in a form that is no longer controversial. If possible, I would prefer it if someone else write it from scratch based upon the evidence I have sourced, and as such, I would have no potential to create any description of the issue which might be judged as biased.

I suspect in response to my showing this issue that Perverted-Justice may attempt to blank the article or some of its edits so that there is no evidence of their actions. Due to this, I have saved all of the pages showing this difference. I am not well-versed in how to log wikis, I admit, so hopefully doing so will be considered adequate if I submit the articles or host them somewhere. Tyciol 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

MedCab[edit]

You are listed as involved here. Dyskolos 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (1) / Pro-pedophile activism[edit]

Hey, just droppping you a note that I volunteered to mediate this case. It looks like everyone's willing to work out a solution, and I look forward to working with you. I've noticed the case has been open for a bit, so I just wanted to ask you to weigh in when necessary. Thanks. justice 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks[edit]

If you don't agree with a block made by an administrator then the first thing you should do is talk to the admin about it - you often find that they are more than happy to discuss it and remove the block themselves if there is a valid reason to do so. If that doesn't solve the problem, you can take the issue to WP:AN/I where other admins and users can review the block and a consensus can be formed as to what to do. That's the only option you really have I'm affraid other than dispute resolution, but to go down that path, there really needs to be other users that share your concern about a particular admin. Nope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would advise you to contact the arbcom, dispute resolution isn't going to help as this issue is already the subject of an arbcom case, I would advise against posting to AN/I for the same reason, SqueakBox 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not aware of the admins involved here so I can't really advise you deeply on the matter. Might be a good idea to take SB's advice if it's already at arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
e.g. see this quieries to arbcom request, SqueakBox 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, well for blocks like that then it's best to do as it says and email the arbitration committee about it as it's a private matter that no-one else will know about. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned user comments[edit]

Mike D78 was banned as a sockpuppet of a banneduser. Therefore I have every right to remove his comments and you have none to restore them. Such an action if repeated could result in your being blocked, just don't go down this path, please, SqueakBox 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to response on this issue from CBDunkerson --CBD 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (2) / Request for mediation[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do with Mike D78 Commentary[edit]

Hi Homologeo. Thank You for your message. I've been pretty disappointed with wikipedia and they way these edit wars, where pedophilia is the primary subject, are being handled. I believe the indefinite block of Mike D78 is a gross miscarriage of justice. He brought up some very good points and I believe his comments belong on the talk page. It's true he may have been a banned editor and thus a sockpuppet, however, it is very possible that he wasn't and the blocking administrator refused to see that. I don't believe Mike D78 was a disruption either. He always expressed himself eloquently, and with stood Squeakbox's and his barrage of personal insults. Squeakbox, on the other hand, is disruptive and the fact that he goes unpunished for his anti-pedophilia pushing, on anything concerning pedophilia, makes me wonder if he has a close friendship with at least one administrator maybe more. He obviously has a disdain for pedophiles, yet edits article's about the subject and thinks he can put his personal feeling aside and be objective. I have not seen a single edit by Squeakbox that you can say is neutral. Fighting for Justice 08:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (3) / Request for mediation accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder5.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

PPA Mediation (4) / Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism[edit]

Hi there, I believe SqueakBox is quite keen to keep the mediation off-wiki, so would you be prepared to do it on IRC or the MedCom's own wiki? It's entirely your choice so please don't think I'm forcing you into anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (5) / Current Issues[edit]

I am contacting all those involved in the mediation @ Pro-pedophile activism who seem to have missed one or both of these issues. Hopefully, with more editors voicing their opinions, we can approach consensus on these taxing questions.

The Blocking of A.Z:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A.Z.

Merger for Adult-child sex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adult-child_sex#Merge

85.10.140.167 08:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes[edit]

Im so sorry!! I reverted a vandals edit seconds after you made your edit, so i accidently reverted your edit as well. You can redo your edit, just please edit like normal. Dont revert it because then i'll have to remove the bit of spam that the IP address added again. dposse 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (6) / Mediation wiki[edit]

Hi, Homologeo. Can we expect your statement on the mediation case soon (on the mediation wiki?). I would really like to get forward with this case, so pardon me if I'm a little pushy. Martijn Hoekstra 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Asford[edit]

Thanks for fixing my screw up. I was about to revert myself when you got it. :) Ospinad 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome =) ~ Homologeo 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Hello Homologeo, I just wanted to say thank you for removing the vandalism off of my talk page. It was very kind of you. I will guard your talk page from vandalism as well. Have a good day. Fighting for Justice 08:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Myanmar[edit]

Nice we agree over something and for what IMO relates to NPOV reasons. I am no great fan of the current gov there but the whole point of being an encyclopedia writer is that one supports NPOV even with unpopular causes. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you...[edit]

That was my first Barnstar! FGC can be a delicate subject. I'm glad that I could contribute to the page. And to be recognized by one of my peers, well, that just made my day. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw all the work you did cleaning it up. It looks good. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You're most welcome. I'm happy to help out any way I can, especially when an article requires special finesse. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, please help me. Tell me what I am doing wrong or how I can improve things with Blackworm. I'm not opposed to modification or criticism of my contributions but his behavior has gone too far. He doesn't understand anything about the basic contexts - he keeps claiming that I have to prove that FGC is not a religious practice, when the unicef quote says it isn't, none of the material in any of the sections relates an example of FGC as a religious practice, all of the religions state that it is not part of their religion. There is a ref from the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an saying it's not a part of Islam and Blackworm says that I have to prove that the Secretary General of the Ulemas is the minority view! Seriously, whatever it takes, I just want to get back to working on the article. I have spent a painful amount of time responding in detail, but Blackworm has yet to respond in kind. You seem the only one willing to step into this hornet's nest. Please, any advice or intervention would be greatly appreciated. Phyesalis 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Block list[edit]

In case it might soon be gone from the original talk page due to archiving, I very much support you making any such list Homologeo, especially if you can provide evidence for remarkable ties to PAW-related articles. --Tlatosmd (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perverted Justice[edit]

Thanks for alerting me as to why there was a Derefer and for fixing my mistake, I didn't know what it was and it just seemed useless to me thats why I changed it, Thanks again! SyBerWoLff 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Adult-child sex[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Adult-child sex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (7) / Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism[edit]

Please could you take time to pop over to the MedCom wiki so we can have a go at solving the dispute? It's been going on for a while now, and we really need to get cracking to come to an amicable end. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to do it. Done and done! ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks like an interesting wiki there. Tyciol (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Please stop reverting and discuss your changes on the talk page. Any further reversions will result in a block for disruption. This message has also been placed on User:SqueakBox's page. Nakon 06:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have only reverted the edits twice, and my reasoning for such action was fully explained on the Talk Page. SqueakBox has previously attempted to insert such POV-laden definitions and intro's into a number of other pedophilia-related articles. It does not make sense for an encyclopedia to state things as fact, and to avoid neutral uncontroversial terminology when is it available. Furthermore, did you not personally state that significant and controversial changes (such as this) should first be discussed on the Talk Page - SqueakBox definitely did not fully justify his edits, and has yet to address the concerns brought up by other editors about his actions. Finally, such definitions and intro's have been repeatedly criticized and rejected both within this article and in other pedophilia-related pieces where this user had attempted to introduce such obvious POV. It is impossible that he could have thought that controversial edits of this type would not instill disagreement and upset other editors, considering that he knows full well what happened in the past and that a number of editors involved in editing this article are the same individuals who disagreed with him in prior times. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's all just stay calm, eh? I know, Squeak doesn't always make it easy...!
I would like to invite your comments AND EDITING to this page. Enlarging and Referencing. Making it better, thorough, nd excrucioatingly NPOV (either way... "Just the facts, ma'am.").
Any assistance is appreciated. VigilancePrime VigilancePrime (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (8) / Regarding PPA at MedComWiki[edit]

When you have a few minutes, please visit MedComWiki and provide your assessment of the *revised* version of the introduction now under consideration. Many thanks, Welland R (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ACS 3 and Thanks =[edit]

HL, I hope you don't mind (and you can {{db-userreq}} if you do mind), but I took the major overhaul from a week or so ago of the ACS article and placed it at User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 3 after seeing that you had archived two prior versions/workpages. Hope it helps. Lots of references (though some are bad).
Also, thank you for your invitation to rejoin the efforts, but I'm not going back. Call me a victim of SPOV-pushing. I don't need the sort of accusations, libel, name-calling, and other personal attacks that they utilize. Especially when they get their pets to start blocking and following me for no good (meaning solid policy-based reasons, as I have demonstrated).
But, I wish you well in your continued efforts there. I hope to work with you again in the future, just not on articles owned by the PAW. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex[edit]

Attacking the arbitrary decision to delete that clearly violated all consensus established in 15-20 polls and also the most recent one takes place here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 23. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get me banned?[edit]

Hey Homologeo! Obviously SqueakBox is now trying to get me banned because I have more valid and reliable facts, sources, better reasoning and a more educated and intellectual background and thus obviously pose a serious threat, and refuse to back down against his constant intimidations and flaming. Combine that with the fact his friends are threatening me for the fact I speak up against him, trying to make me look like a lunatic no-good for having to be threatened. As you seem to be the one the other side sees as the most "neutral" and balanced of "the incorrigible lot", I'd like to hear your opinion. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice spiel, do you believe it? Methinks not. I find your claims to have "more valid and reliable facts, sources, better reasoning and a more educated and intellectual background" to be hilarious, but you provide no evidence you aren't actually just being conceited. The intellectual background bit is particularly revealing of your state of mind, but having made some false logical assertions re me you then start trolling by claiming that if your ridiculous accusations were true (and they aren't) that it would pose a serious threat. I am not arrogant enough to think I am brighter than you etc but I have not threatened you and you belittle yourself by claiming otherwise. And please don't assume that I, at least, consider Homologeo in any sense of the word neutral we=when talking about pedophilia as my real belief is completely the opposite. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No one is trying to get you banned, and I don't know anything about SqueakBox and my interaction with him is limited to these most recent discussions you have been involved in. What you may not know, and what you should be aware of, is that there is a POV bright line at Wikipedia. Most points of view are welcome with the proviso that articles themselves should be presented neutrally. Some points of view, particularly pro-pedophilia or anti-anti-pedophilia, are categorically unwelcome because of the inevitable disruption they cause. Editors who leave themselves open for accusation on these grounds risk in effect banning themselves, and while I won't accuse you of controversial points of view it is fair to warn you that it could reasonably be argued based on some of your comments and your general pattern of editing. Avruchtalk 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, TlatoSMD, as I stated on your Talk Page, I would not worry too much about such accusations. As long as Wikipedia policies are observed, I say just stick to NPOV and remain your civil self, and there will be no reason for concern. I'll admit that it's true that there is pedophile-paranoia currently gripping a portion of the Wikipedia population, but I'm hoping policy and logic will win out over senseless fear and red herring fallacies. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Claiming he is mpore intelligent than me is NPOV. By whose standards? Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I can only judge user contributions to the editing of articles and commentary associated with this process. I'm in no position to evaluate anyone's intelligence. Thus, I don't think it's my place to judge whether or not TlatoSMD is telling the truth or is being NPOV in the comment above. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I don't know you, you don't know me and be assured Tlato doesn't know either of us (as far as I know), which is why his assumption based on lack of knowledge has no bearing on anything meaningful. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note "intellectual background" referred to Squeak's constant pushing of anti-intellectualism as we have also other editors seen doing. What does that say about my state of mind? Obviously I'm not the only person here with a persecution complex. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: And Homologeo's "neutrality" I was referring to is civility as well as how he talks about other editors and how he judges their actions. There are obviously other editors who content-wise are on our side but who are regarded as less civil than Homologeo by the other side. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit to "Female Genital Cutting" on January 23, 2008[edit]

Information.png

Hi, the recent edit you made to Female genital cutting has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Snowolf How can I help? 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops... Now I know what happened - I was trying to click on the edit box, and pressed the "strike through" button over it by mistake. Thus, the weird text appeared in front of the sentence. The edit I was intending to make and then did make was legitimate. Thanks for catching the lil blunder. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB[edit]

IAW Wikipedia:Canvassing, the following Friendly Notice is a "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors."
Best wishes and happy editing! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The links work for me without the dereferrer[edit]

Have you tried clearing your cookies/cache? It's possible they're actually testing for pedophile advocacy websites or something similar. John Nevard (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why cookies/cache on my PC would affect the outcome of the redirect filter on Pervert-Justice. Still, I just tried it your way, clearing all cookies/cache and reloading Firefox, and there's no change in the way the links work. Not sure why they seem to not be redirecting links that you click on. Since I'm likely not the only Wikipedia editor/user that will end up being redirected, the derefer templates need to stay in place. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
They've just turned on for me again, seems like an intermittant thing. Still not seeing any reason to obscure the links to the main site. John Nevard (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PPA[edit]

You have been involved civilly on this article before, and I think there is a dispute that may be of interest to you. Karla Lindstrom 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

fisting edit[edit]

whoopsie daisy, i couldnt help that one. but come one, all the material was right there. you gotta admit that was pretty darn funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.154.200 (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (9) / Pro-pedophile activism[edit]

Hi, could you pop over to the MedCom wiki and take a look at a way to move forward? I've copied over the introduction and would like everyone be bold an make changes to it, hopefully we should be able to thrash out a consensus. Take a look at this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Opinion Valued: ACS userpage[edit]

(apologies to User:VigilancePrime for copying his template)

IAW Wikipedia:Canvassing, the following Friendly Notice is a "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors."
  • You may be interested in a current DRV discussion. This message is to inform you of the discussion. There is no attempt to indicate on which side of the issue you may or should "vote" or comment.
  • Recently, the page User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex was nominated for speedy deletion by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). When that speedy was undone, the user Guy brought the page to MfD and won by arguments referring to a different piece, a mainspace article of the same name.
  • Thus, there has now been a DRV opened. Based on your past edits and comments, you may have reason to comment or contribute to this DRV discussion. Please do.
  • If this message is in error and you do not have an interest in such a case, please forgive the intrusion and bother.
Best wishes and happy editing! --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
H, I rolled back the undoing of your edit, re-placing the above content. Especially since you put it back, it is obviously acceptable to you (not to mention it is not canvassing by the definitions of the WikiPolicy in question). Just wanted to let you know. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - TlatoSMD has been indefinitely blocked. Avruchtalk 02:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's news to me. I guess I'll go see what the brouhaha is about this time around. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
While a little late on the draw, "the brouhaha" and Tlato's block was due to his insistence on the following of Wikipedia policy and his honesty in pointing out the violative travesties of policy. And nobody will touch it in "appeal" because then they'll be thusly flamed, vilified, harassed, and all the same. You know... you've seen it before. VigilancePrime 04:52 (UTC) 17 Mar '08

If you're interested[edit]

If you're interested, there's a thread at ANI that you may wish to read and/or on which you may want to comment. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, thought I ought to let you know. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, VigilancePrime - while I understand your frustration concerning SqueakBox, I currently don't have the time to commit to the heated discussion that is quickly emerging on ANI and elsewhere. Besides, I really doubt that this editor's disruptive behavior will stop any time soon, even after this ANI thread. Maybe I'll comment on this situation some other time. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I noticed your participation in discussions about this user, or similar articles to those which he was seemingly banned for editing.

See at the bottom of the talkpage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TlatoSMD Karla Lindstrom 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal[edit]

Thanks, he's not vandalized since his final warning, please report him at WP:AIV if he vandalizes again. Perhaps he got the message. Keilana|Parlez ici 13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

St. John's problems[edit]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll have a look and will keep an eye. I'm hesitant to semiprotect again due to the repeated failures of that in the past. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PPA Mediation (10) / PPA[edit]

Hey, could you go to this link? I've created a proposal for the mediation to put new editors and SPA's editing the PPA page, and other related pages under the supervision of some neutral admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox's Edit to "Pro-pedophile activism"[edit]

H, I read your comment and Squeak's reply on his talk page. I would have replied there but for our mutual agreement not to post on each others pages (which he's violated, but I will not). You are absolutely right to question the edit; I actually laughed when I read it. SqueakBox is wholly and completely into pushing his own personal biases regardless of neutrality or even fact. To say that PPA is about decriminalizing child sexual abuse is absurd and I'd like to see that referenced. No PPA in would ever say "we want to legalize child sex abuse". Now I'm not saying that what they want to decriminalize is considered abuse, but to a PPA it isn't abusive. To categorically state it in the manner Squeak did is an almost-subtle slam on anyone that may argue otherwise. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is not neutral.
As a better example, suppose a person in California, where the age of consent is 18, believed that the age of consent should be 16, as in Washington, or even 14, as in Canada. To categorically state that this person is working to legalize child sex abuse is inaccurate and purposefully inflammatory. In fact, the person is (likely/assumptively) working to reduce the age - which other jurisdictions have deemed appropriate - to which a child (child = under 18 or under 21, depending on who you ask) may consent to sex. Is sex with a 17 year old sex abuse? It could be. Maybe it always is. But to evaluatively declare it thus in an alleged encyclopedia is incorrect.
Anyway, what's particularly inappropriate and also humorous is that AFTER SqueakBox makes the change he chimes in saying that the "existing" intro is fine, seeming to agree with everyone who had consensed that the existing - pre-Squeak - intro was sufficient. I'm losing track of the POV-pushing attempts and disingenuineness and just plain ludicrous-ness of him and his edits.
But I'm staying out of it for my own sanity. Wanted, though, to note agreement with you and bring out this perspective as well. Take care, VigilancePrime 04:47 (UTC) 17 Mar '08

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual[edit]

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch[edit]

You have a response on my Discussions page; follow the Kacheek emoticon in my sig. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)[edit]

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

Homologeo, you are familiar with pedophilia topics, and have pointed out how most child molestors are not pedophiles. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind lending your voice on the Pedophilia article's talk page about the definition of pedophilia and what separates situational sexual offenders from pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I ever personally made any judgment call on whether or not most child molesters are pedophiles, but I'll be happy to take a look at what's going with the article in question. ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh, my memory must be fuzzy. It was someone making that argument in the debate that was going on over the now non-existent article Adult-child sex. I remember more than one editor stating that, with valid references backing up their claims. Sorry if I mistook you. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra and Jack[edit]

Just to let you know, these users created similar problems before -- Petra making the brunt of the edits and Jack defending them, similar to the current dispute -- as Nudity and children. There had been an AfD decision to merge the article with Nudity, and Petra's way of enacting this was to blank the page. Jack defended this on several pages, including User talk:LaraLove and User talk:PetraSchelm. This newest incident should probably be brought up at ANI as the latest incarnation of questionable editing practices by both of these users. I know you meant well posting at East718's page, but I think this is a more serious and ongoing problem that needs to be brought before the community. If you do decide to move the discussion there feel free to drop a link on my talk page. Thanks. Equazcion /C 04:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sure you will have lots of credibilty Equazcion, after the result of the AN/I discussion was that I had "legit concerns." Also, that you merged all the content into Nudity, after the result of both the AfD and AN/I was that very little of it should be merged, because it was mostly original research...-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting the "result" of the ANI discussion from... if someone agreed that you had legitimate concerns, that's great. Some also agreed that your edits were uncalled for. There was no "result". Similarly, the result of the AfD was simply "merge". People such as yourself may have said things like "only some" etc, but that doesn't change the "result". Equazcion /C 05:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, pretty much everyone agreed that the article was full of OR and that very little of the content should remain--and yet you merged it all into Nudity anyway. The result of AN/I was the end of stonewalling the merge at least, but also that I has legitimate concerns about that. (Also, you made weird bad faith accusations, to which you admitted yourself...) No one said my "edits were uncalled" for; but I think Gwyn didn't understand that I moved the contents to talk of Nudity in good faith as hopeful compromise between the people who were redirecting and the people who were reverting them. (you were involved in that edit war; I was not...) All in all, I would say you took a hostile/combative stance about something and "lost," and now you seem resentful and vindictive, in my opinion. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Mm hmm. If you want to insist on declaring the results of these discussions for yourself, I see no reason to stop you. Equazcion /C 05:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, Lara called it when she closed the AfD.-PetraSchelm (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, called it a merge. Equazcion /C 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcedness[edit]

Hm, are you still active? 10 months... dang, well if you come back I saw your work on Talk:Lindsay Ashford these are good observations about sourcedness. Tyciol (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lindsay Ashford (activist)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lindsay Ashford (activist). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (activist). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)