User talk:Chrislyte

January 2014

Please read WP:SYNTH, it concerns your edits at Pornography addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, you have to have reliable sources referring to pornography addiction, not to addiction in general. The criticism that DSM-5 missed the point is misguided, since it does recognize a behavioral addiction, namely pathological gambling. Please do not insert general views which have been proven false into an article discussing a specific addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You should read WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDASSESS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_142#www.yourbrainonporn.com as MEDRS-quality source about masturbation, pornography, addiction and human sexuality: Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson are theologically-biased peddlers of fringe medical claims. None of them is qualified as a medical and/or psychological researcher, therefore they don't amount to expert opinion on anything medical and psychological, including human sexuality. Insistence to quote such sources could be seen as WP:Advocacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

False claims Tgeorgescu

Your claim that "The DSM-5 has never explicitly considered online pornography consumption for inclusion as an addiction, and has not, to date, accepted it." is patently false. Read pages 797-798 of DSM-5. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I mean the part with "never explicitly considered...". Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see nothing there that refutes what I have written. The DSM formally considered "hypersexuality" and "internet addiction," but not "internet pornography addiction". That's a fact. You need to provide evidence of formal consideration and debate of this concept or restore what I wrote.

See Talk:Pornography addiction#False claims by Chrislyte. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is you who are claiming that the DSM5 considered pornography addiction. It did not. You have yet to cite anything saying that the DSM5 considered pornography addiction. You are the one making false claims.

Reference Errors on 29 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pornography addiction page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pornography addiction without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Pornography addiction, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. The statement that DSM-5 never explicitly considered viewing online pornography is not only original research but actually proven false by the quotation I offered in the talk page of the discussed article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Original research

I have asked you multiple times to provide a source for your claims that the DSM team never formally evaluated including/excluding (online) pornography addiction. If you cannot provide a source for it, your claim will be deleted. Take time to read WP:OR and WP:VER, so that you will understand the basics of editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu, it is you who must show that the DSM formally proposed "internet porn addiction" for official consideration. A comment in notes about other addictions pointing out that there was not, at the time of the comment, adequate research on internet porn users' brains to justify creating "internet porn addiction" as a disorder is not proof that the condition was "specifically rejected." That terminology implies that the DSM gave careful, formal consideration to the condition. It did not, and it is intellectually dishonest to imply that it did.

This is as dishonest as citing an article about the effects of masturbation in a Wiki page on the "effects of pornography," while helping to keep out peer-reviewed research on the actual effects of internet pornography.Chrislyte (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

No, you made a positive claim about what DSM team did not do, you have to prove it is true. I did not make the claim, you did. If it cannot be proven with a reliable source, it will be deleted. That's what WP:VER, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mean. They are standards which every editor has to abide by, so you cannot claim special treatment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that there is no way to prove that something *did not* occur...because it did not occur. It is you who must back up your claim of "specific rejection" or keep it out. If not, I am happy to request moderation. Chrislyte (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

So, how do you know that it did not occur, are you a mind reader? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I known it did not occur, and I know you do not have a source saying that porn addiction was considered. Please cite something saying that porn addiction was considered. Not a mind reader, simply a reader. Chrislyte

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Chrislyte. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu. Please do not cite out of date reviews, such as Ley et al. Its claims are not supported by their citations. Moreover, studies have since been published refuting Ley's unsupported propaganda. Cambridge university correlated erectile dysfunction with compulsive porn use. From the study:

"Compared to healthy volunteers, CSB subjects had greater subjective sexual desire or wanting to explicit cues and had greater liking scores to erotic cues, thus demonstrating a dissociation between wanting and liking. CSB subjects also had greater impairments of sexual arousal and erectile difficulties in intimate relationships but not with sexually explicit materials highlighting that the enhanced desire scores were specific to the explicit cues and not generalized heightened sexual desire."

''CSB subjects reported that as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials..... experienced diminished libido or erectile function specifically in physical relationships with women (although not in relationship to the sexually explicit material) (N = 11)..."

"CSB subjects compared to healthy volunteers had significantly more difficulty with sexual arousal and experienced more erectile difficulties in intimate sexual relationships but not to sexually explicit material."

A second MRI study by Germany's Max Planck Institute found higher hours per week/more years of porn viewing correlated with a reduction in grey matter in sections of the reward circuitry (striatum) associated with sexual arousal. In addition more porn use correlated with less brain activation and less arousal to sexual images. Said the study,

"This is in line with the hypothesis that intense exposure to pornographic stimuli results in a downregulation of the natural neural response to sexual stimuli."

Lead researcher Simone Kühn said -

"That could mean that regular consumption of pornography more or less wears out your reward system."

"We assume that subjects with a high porn consumption need increasing stimulation to receive the same amount of reward."

Ley et al is woefully out of date, and cannot support its claims with ciations. I ask you again to please name the citations in ley et al that support your statements in this Wikipedia article. Chrislyte

You may want to check out the definition at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

"Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.

I cite research from Cambridge and Max Planck while you cite an outdated review who's citations rarely back its claims. Please cite original source material, rather than unsubstantiated claims from Ley et al. Chrislyte (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

August 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Pornography addiction. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You make no sense. This article contains many references which are individual studies. Ley et al. is not a reliable source as it cannot be found in Pub Med. See this searchChrislyte (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)