User talk:RichardWeiss/Archivehistory

If you want to find some historical talk please go here and use Ctrl F but be warned its a huge archive page and may mess with your web browser.

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Necesito ayuda con la clase española

I'm taking my first Spanish class in college and I was wondering if you'd be at all interested in conversing with me, in simple form, to improve my skill? --Ssbohio 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tal vez, SqueakBox 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pero no se comop conversariamos y yo, como los hablan espanol; como nativos, lo hablo bastante rapido a pesar de mi acento gringo, SqueakBox 18:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the gist of it is that I won't like it because you speak Spanish fast enough (quickly?), unimpeded by your foreign accent. Am I close? --Ssbohio 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and while my accent is not perfect (not a good one to imitate) I am understood by people here where I live. Learnign a foreign language is great, it was the best thing I ever did and utterly transformed my life (I was 35 when I started), SqueakBox 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tengo treinta y cinco años, también. 96% of the people in Ohio are monolingual. I'm already a homosexual; Once I become bilingual I could be in a fraction of 1% of the population for unusualness.  :-) --Ssbohio 05:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If, say, 10% of people are homosexual, and the fraction of homosexuals that are bilingual is the same as that of non-homosexuals, then you'd be in a fraction of 10% of 4% of the population that are both bilingual and homosexual, which is 0,4% of the total population (I think). You would be in a fraction of 1% if, for instance, 25% of the population were homosexuals and the percentage of homosexuals that are bilingual were the same as that of non-homosexuals, or 10% of people were homosexuals, but being bilingual were three times more common among homosexuals than among non-homosexuals (I think). A.Z. 05:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit

I see this as destructive behavior that can affect other editors, Wikipedia, and people that read Wikipedia. I suggest that you refrain from editing pedophilia-related articles. A.Z. 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It isnt acceptable to either claim my attempts at NPOVing a totally disputed article are destructive let alone that, in your opinion, I should desist from editing pedophile related articles. Check the history of the PPA article for some background on the endless socks of banned users that have made the article into such a POV mess but do not tell me what articles you think I can or cannot edit, especially given I am a regular editor and mature adult (what we in English call a grown-up) with substantial experience on the project not some newbie who doesn't know what he is doing. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe people don't access Wikipedia's articles interested in your rants. That page shouldn't be protected: you were the one causing trouble and you should be the one blocked, so people who are interested in writing an encyclopedia can edit the page. That you are a regular editor is yet another reason why your edit was so incredibly unacceptable: you certainly had a lot of time to learn how to write a decent article. If after 30,000 edits you weren't able to do it, I feel other editors have no reason to keep trying to teach you while you disrupt Wikipedia like that. Your comments on your alleged maturity, your comment regarding your age, your comment on experience on the project, and you teling me that I don't know what I'm doing and that I'm a newbie all back up my feeling that you should be banned. It's people like you that make Wikipedia not so great. The next time you add something like that to an article, I will ask an administrator to block you. A.Z. 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are just demonstrating your bad faith and if continuie like this you are likely to be the one to be blocked. Admins do not block people for disagreeing with you and given you havent made a single constructive point I assume your comments to be pure trolling from a user who appears not to understand good faith. I'l,l be keeping a good eye on your edits from now on, now please leave my talk page in peace. I certainlyu did not say you were a newbie and have already checked out your edit count etc.. To accuse me of causing the page lock is plain silly, check the 3rr page and the admins comments for an understanding of why the page was actuially locked, but then empty acusations filled with seething anger apear to be your speciality. Any further atempts to write top me here on this subject will be treated as hostile as you have shown a serious lack of good faith. if you wish to edit the pedophile article like anyone else you are welcome to do so, if you just want to block users who disagree with you you are in the wrong place, while if you think you can iontimidate me with your bad faith rant you have chosen the wrong person to troll, SqueakBox 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying that some of my differences with SqueakBox run so deep that a week's work with a shovel wouldn't fully unearth them, but, in other areas, he & I are on the same page. So, take this for what it's worth:

SqueakBox edits the lede to begin Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children. The obverse movement is anti-pedophile activism, which aims to protect children from predatory pedophiles. Much as I sympathize with his sentiments, such emotionally-charged terminology is sure to generate more heat than light. It doesn't sound like a neutral approach to the subject (and the subject doesn't sound neutral to begin with, but that's a separate matter).

Instead, try this on for size: Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to remove barriers to what they see as sexual freedom and youth liberation but what the vast majority define as child sexual abuse. The counter-movement is anti-pedophile activism, which acts to further what it sees as protecting children from predatory pedophiles, but what pedophile groups have viewed as harassment, intimidation, and entrapment.

Is that language less strident regarding pedophiles? Of course. Is that a problem? I think not. The vast majority of us already know that in Western culture, an adult having sex with a child is a form of abuse, without needing to be told. Sometimes it's better to neutralize the emotional appeal in the language when it's clear that the message has already come through loud and clear. No one is going to read the second version of the lede and suddenly reverse their thinking about pedophilia. The same change of tone can be applied to the rest of the edits, as well. --Ssbohio 02:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ssbohio, I do not see how an adult having sex with a child is necessarily a form of abuse. I realize that people can abuse children, and adults, and old people, and I find any form of sexual abuse repulsive, including that of children, but children certainly don't dislike all things sexual, and they could, I think, find someone older than them to be sexually attractive.

SqueakBox, I think I was too disturbed by your edit, and it made me see you as an evil person that should be banned from here. I made up my mind, and every time I thought of trying to converse with you, I remembered of your edit and I thought that the kind of people that inserts without any sources, nor consensus, their own personal opinion, and an attack, in the introduction of an article, being an experienced user, was someone with whom there was nothing else to be talked. Being capable of writing "falling in the hands of pedophiles" after 33,000 edits made me think you were a lost case. You were, to me, using Wikipedia as your soapbox, and I was sorry that other editors had to deal with what I thought was such an obvious disruption from an established editor that had years to learn that what he was doing is wrong. I am not sure now whether I was right about you being evil. I am sorry for the way I acted, and I hope you forgive me for accusing you of being destructive, and suggesting your block, without even hearing what you had to say about the matter first. A.Z. 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thasnks for that. Of course I am not evil, well all humans contain good and evil to some degree but I am a law-abiding guy trying to generate some money in this poor Caribbean Latino city in which I live and integrating into the local culture, SqueakBox 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ssbohio, I appreciate the suggestion. Here's my two cents on the matter:

The majority of users working on editing the article have actually agreed on the version of the introduction that exists now. You might want to offer your input on the current version of the intro, which reads, in part: Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response associated with pedophiles and adult-minor sexual relations.... Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to minors and legalization of adult-minor sexual activity, which is currently defined as child sexual abuse. The movement stands in contrast to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to uphold and apply more rigorously current laws.

I think this version does a good job of briefly laying out the subject of the article while remaining neutral. I think it's best to save a more detailed description of the views for later in the article, where they can be explained better. I think if we try to go into too much detail in describing the views of both sides, as it were, in the introduction, we risk distorting and oversimplifying them (for instance, it's not only pedophile groups that consider some aspects of anti-pedophile activism to be entrapment).

Let me know if you think the current version of the introduction is a good solution. Mike D78 04:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No I am not happy with the current version and intend to re-edit it freshly when it gets unlocked. I will, though, make sure I reference new material I add. There is clearly not a consensus re the opening, that is why the article is tagged as totally disputed and if we exclude the indefinitely banned users I see very little consensus. I think the opening is critical and needs to have some fundamental criticisms of the movement. Certainly the kind of people who wrote Megan's law and tried to pass Sarah's law in the UK would not be happy with the PPA view bnecoming law, and that is to say the very least of it, SqueakBox 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That was directed at Ssbohio, not you, Squeak. You've already shown that you don't intend to cooperate with the majority of users editing this article.

And don't think that referencing some news article that states popular opinion about pedophiles is going to justify any introduction that is worded similarly to the one you tried to force into the article previously.

I would suggest you post your proposed introduction on the talk page of the article so other users can collaborate with you on it, rather than unilaterally deciding how the introduction should read.

"There is clearly not a consensus re the opening"

What are you talking about? Most users have clearly stated a preference for the introduction as it reads now. Mike D78 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Err, this is my user page so its a good idea to expect me to repsond what you have to say here. You simply are not going to get your way, ie keeping the article POV from a PPA perspectiove and your threats make that no more of a likelihood. The article is totally disputed and when the edit button re-appears I dont believe I need to get your permission to use it. You can state till you are blue in the face that most users support your beloeved version but once we remove the banned users from the equation there is no consensus of any sort and this sounds tome like a POV pushing tactic on your behalf. I am committed to an NPOV article and most importantly an NPOV opening so that we can remove the totally disputed tag. You only seem interested in pedophilia articles from your contribs which makes you an SPA and POV pushing SPAs are not popular on wikipedia for obvious reasons. Users like me, A.Z, Homologeo and Ssbohio are not SPAs and therefore are far more worthy of respect because we care about the project overall and not just our little agendas within it, and you would do well to keep that in mind. We have been around the block several times with this. As they say round here "Basta ya", SqueakBox 23:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"You simply are not going to get your way, ie keeping the article POV from a PPA perspectiove"

I never suggested this was my goal, nor do I believe the article has the shortcomings you claim it does. FightingForJustice has stated that he thinks the article is for the most part fine as it is now; I hardly think he's a pedophile apologist.

"your threats make that no more of a likelihood."

What threats have I made?

"when the edit button re-appears I dont believe I need to get your permission to use it."

Quit distorting things; many users have disagreed with your edits, not just me. You obviously don't need persmission from anyone to make any particular edit, but you do need consensus if you wish for your edits to stand.

"once we remove the banned users from the equation there is no consensus of any sort"

Haven't the banned users already been dealt with? And yet a majority of users still dispute many of your edits, because they are bad, inappropriate edits to any objective user.

"You only seem interested in pedophilia articles from your contribs"

I have a limited amount of time to devote to Wikipedia, and unfortunately, a large amount of it has been devoted to defending myself against your accusations.

"Users like me, A.Z, Homologeo and Ssbohio are not SPAs"

So why have you repeatedly simply dismissed their concerns with your edits?

"therefore are far more worthy of respect because we care about the project overall and not just our little agendas within it, and you would do well to keep that in mind. We have been around the block several times with this."

Indeed we have, but you seem to have learned little, as you repeatedly arrogantly suggest that the fact that you have edited here longer means that you can disregard what I and others have to say. That is simply not the case. Mike D78 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A.Z. I hope you did not seriously mean that you cannot see how an adult having sex with a child is a form of abuse, considering it is a felony crime in the United States. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also a serious crime in the UK and in Honduras where the penalties are very stiff. I imagine it is no different in Brazil, SqueakBox 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm the last one to carry the banner for pedophilia, especially considering my personal history, but I do have to point out the logical issue here. It's a case of cause & effect. Sex with children/adolescents is illegal because it's wrong, not the other way around. Its illegality is caused by its being inherently wrong, so the illegality can't be used as evidence that it's wrong. If the pedophiles had their wish fulfilled and all age of consent laws were abolished, pedophilia wouldn't become right, because it's inherent flaws are unchanged: there is no informed consent, so the act itself can never be ethical. The reasoned debate comes in the "edge cases." In Ohio (my home state - Go Bucks!), the age of consent for male-male sex used to be 21. Even so, that doesn't make someone who wants to have sex with a 20-year-old into a child molester. That's what I mean by an edge case. Just like it wouldn't be unethical (in my opinion) to be intimate with that 20-year-old, by the same logic, it would be unethical for me to be intimate with someone younger, even if the age of consent were lowered or abolished. Legal & illegal intersect with right & wrong, but they're not the same thing. It may be too late in the night for it, but I hope I'm making sense... --Ssbohio 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bucks? What is that referring to? There is a US case of a 17 year old boy serving 10 years for having had a 15 year girl give him oral sex. That is an edge case and totally ridiculous but if someone your or my age were in his position, Ssbohio, IMO, the full weight of the law should be applied, SqueakBox 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You make a lot of sense. A.Z. 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting discussion, Ssbohio, but these talk pages are typically for discussing improvement of articles rather than the subjects of the articles themselves, so I'll refrain from adding my $0.02 and taking this further off topic.

What is your opinion of the introduction of the article as it currently stands? Mike D78 14:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mike this is my talk page and the comments of Ssbohio are entirely appropriate, we dont have to keep strictly on the topic of an article here, just on the topic of wikipedia as a whole, which we are doing so please don't maske such comments on my talk page discouraging discussion or trying to guide discussion in any way. My opinion is that the opening is totally disputed and needs changing, SqueakBox 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, this discussion clearly is not "on the topic of wikipedia as a whole."

Regardless, it's been deemed in the past that these kinds of discussions are disruptive and that arguing a particular viewpoint is enough to get one banned from Wikipedia. So a fair discussion on this topic is obviously impossible, and at any rate, discussion of actual strategies to improve articles is obviously far more productive.

Finally, my question was aimed at Ssbohio, not you. As long as you continue such conduct as forcing major edits on articles without consensus, then edit warring when several other users challenge your edits, your opinion on this matter will mean little to me. You need to learn to play by the rules.

"My opinion is that the opening is totally disputed"

This opinion simply has no basis in fact. I can show you edits where several other users have supported the intro as it stands now, and edits where at least six users have disagreed with the version of it you kept edit warring to restore. I see almost no support for your stance. Mike D78 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike, if you want to ask Ssbohio questions do so on his talk page, not mine which is not a general discussion page but my talk page for discussing things releeavnt to me. Your comment "Regardless, it's been deemed in the past that these kinds of discussions are disruptive and that arguing a particular viewpoint is enough to get one banned from Wikipedia" seems like troling to me and I would ask you to be civil on my talk page if yopu want to remain welcome here, nobody is going to get blocked for the discussion we are haviung and your continually trying to threaten to block people is the only disruptive thing hapening on this page right now. You have absolutley no authority to see anyone blocked on wikipedia and the louder you shout about your precious, albeit totally6 disputed, version the l;ess likely you are to see it stay, SqueakBox 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mike, if you want to ask Ssbohio questions do so on his talk page, not mine which is not a general discussion page but my talk page for discussing things releeavnt to me."

The issue of the introduction is obviously relevant to you and asking a user a question related to a Wikipedia-related topic already under discussion here is entirely appropriate. I wish you would quit wasting my time with such petty nonsense; you're so obsessed with making dubious accusations of trolling and inappropriate conduct against me and others that's it's no wonder so little is ever accomplished with you in editing these articles. All you are doing is playing the system, making petty accusations against users you disagree with rather than actively seeking consensus with them as you should.

"nobody is going to get blocked for the discussion we are haviung and your continually trying to threaten to block people is the only disruptive thing hapening on this page right now."

Either you've misunderstood my comments or you're diliberately distorting them. I never threatened that anyone would be blocked. What I said was that arguing a particular point of view on this subject is frowned upon, to the extent that users have been banned in the past for arguing points of view that were deemed to be "harmful to Wikipedia's reputation." So a fair discussion is obviously impossible. Nowhere did I try to discourage anyone else from offering their opinions here; I just gave my reason for not entering into the discussion, and instead tried to steer things back to the original subject at hand, which has yet to be resolved.

"the louder you shout about your precious, albeit totally6 disputed, version the l;ess likely you are to see it stay"

This seems like a far more malicious comment than anything I have said here. I've already offered to show you evidence that a majority of users support the introduction as it stands now; do you intend to provide any evidence that the intro is "totally disputed," as you claim? If not, I would again ask that you quit wasting my time with such petty discussion, as I'm sure we both have better things to do. Mike D78 19:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish not to waste your time then I suggest you do not post here to my talk page again, but in all honesty I think you are wasting your own time and then blaming me for it. I am happy for you to ask Ssbohio questions here but unhappy when you get narked at me for answering any question on my talk page. You are certainly right that self-identifying paedophiles get blocked but I am unaware that people supporting a pro-paed line get blocked, indeed I am certain that is not the case, wikipedia tends to stamp down much harder on La Rouche supporters who can self-identify but cannot actively use wikipedia articles to promote the La Rouche cause, SqueakBox 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"in all honesty I think you are wasting your own time and then blaming me for it"

I'm not supposed to defend myself when you accuse me of trolling, being a sockpuppet, etc., etc.?

"I am happy for you to ask Ssbohio questions here but unhappy when you get narked at me for answering any question on my talk page."

Well, I think you've already made your opinion about the current introduction clear, and I wanted to get Ssbohio's input on it, since he was posting about the subject here.Mike D78 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and you are certainly welcome to continue commenting on this page and I respect your defending your viewpoint, SqueakBox 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

rasta reverts

Excuse me, but what are you doing to all of my edits regarding {{rasta-stub}}? It was decided here that rasta-stub would be deleted, so I am removing it from the articles. Please stop reverting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalas (talk • contribs)

Ahh I did not know that. I checked that the stub had not not been deleted by checking the previous version and didnt have a clue as to why you were removing the stub. It seems that it has been deleted because that is what Grutness wanted as nobody else expressed an opinion. I unfortunately missed the debate and very strongly oppose the deletion so will take it to DRV. I stronlgy suggest that in the future you delete the stub first instead of assuming people know what you were doing. This has been handled incredibly badly, SqueakBox 21:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am sorry that you missed the debate. However, I'm pretty sure the deletion is going to stand. I know that there were 58 or so articles (which is close to 60), but many of them had very little to do with Rastafarianism as a religion. Most of the articles were about bands or musicians who just happened to be a Rastafari. (Also, apologies if I'm using the terms incorrectly. I'm fairly ignorant of the terminology) Note that we don't put {{Christianity-stub}} on every article of someone who happens to be a Christian. If you can come up with 60 existing articles that are related to Rastafarianism as a religion, then you might get it reinstated. Sorry to step on your toes. Have a great day and happy editing. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not delete the template first because I do not like leaving red links on articles. A lot of times, I can't go through and remove all the templates right away, so the red link would end up sitting there. Sorry for that confusion. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that this was discussed without resolution months ago and while I kept an eye on the category for weeks I then assumed the decision to try for deletion had been abandoned. Grutness is not consensus and he knew vvery well my opposition to the stub being deleted, SqueakBox 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion had been closed for a long time. I closed it on the 20th (diff) so why didn't you say something then? Grutness was the only one who voiced an opinion, so 1 vote of delete is still more than any other votes. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If i had known it was up for fd I would have commented and had been watching for this for weeks after the discussion. The first I knew that someone had decided to fd was when I saw you removing the stubs. I have DRV'd it with my reasons, I should have informed you of that as I now see you are the closing admin, I have a large watchlist and the cat just got missed by me, much to my frustration as I expressed a number of reasons in the initial debate as to why this cat should not be deleted, SqueakBox 22:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Typically, we only inform a template's creator when something goes up for SFD. I did noticed the DRV and I have already added some things to the discussion. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was now retired Codex Sinaiticus who created the stub, not me, and asked me to opine when the stub was first debated on a page whose name I forgewt where dodgy stubs are debated. My frustration is that we had that debate and I was expecting the stub to be fd'd but then it never was and I assumed because my arguments as to why to keep it were accepted, and thus for it to suddenly be fd'd months later and then deleted with no debate when it was known that there were counter arguments that should have been considered. Unlike most stubs on the page where it was first flagged this one was strongly disputed and it seems to me that these concerns were known about (certainly by Grutness) and yet not brought to the fd debate, and I had no idea it was up for debate. So I am unhappy about the deletion, believe if I had had my say it would not have been deleted due to lack of consensus and that this is what should have happened. It feels like the arguments I made in the first palce were disregarded and thus pointless and if Grutness had tried to go for an fd when this stub came up for discussion (as he should have done) then the deletion would have failed. So Im ma defionitely unhappy about the turn of events, SqueakBox 23:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)