User talk:Ssbohio

Template:Attempting wikibreak To paraphrase Kelly Martin, if you're looking for drama, Encyclopedia Dramatica is that way.

Welcome!

Hello Ssbohio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ElBenevolente 19:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Berry, B, & BB

Specific discussion topics

Justin Berry

Discussions regarding Justin Berry and related topics go in User talk:Ssbohio/Justin Berry.

LtWinters & Heesham

LtWinters & Heesham-related topics go in User talk:Ssbohio/Heesham

Adult-child sex

Discussions regarding the adult-child sex article and related topics go in User talk:Ssbohio/Adult-child sex.

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Furry

Looking for something to do? WikiProject Furry is improving articles on furry and anthropomorphic topics, and we'd like to have you on board.

Our current goal is to raise Anthrocon, furry convention and furry fandom to good article status and beyond - but if that doesn't take your fancy, there are plenty of other articles to work on. Give it a go and let us know how you're doing!

You received this one-time invitation because you are a Furry Wikipedian. GreenReaper 23:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCN

Hi there. Your two recent reports of usernames to WP:RFCN were of users that were blocked in 2005. Please check that the users aren't already blocked before reporting them. Also, both usernames are blatant violations and could be reported to WP:UAA. Regards, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I looked for the usual block/ban messages on the user/user talk pages, but I didn't think to check the logs. Thanks for clearing up my mess for me... :-) --Ssbohio 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's no big deal. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Re: John McMullen (broadcaster)

Unprodded. I still think that he does not meet WP:NOTABLE. Perhaps you should try to source the article, find some secondary sources, ... -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting edit

Unfortunately, the same vandalism keeps recurring, probably from the same vandal. The main thing is catching it quick and reverting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just want to congratulate you for your opinions on the article adult-child sex. I don't mean to imply by this in any manner that you support or believe in adult-child sex. I just want to thank you for helping Wikipedia become a real encyclopedia —one whose content is not determined by prejudices nor hate. A.Z. 03:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your congratulations. However, because of the contentious nature of this subject area, I'll make my view plain: there is no case I've ever seen made in favor of adult-child sex that has swayed me in the least. I remind myself when editing here that I must defend against passion in editing this encyclopedia. Adult-child sex happens, and it is at the focus of very great passions in American society (which dominates Wikipedia).

Sometimes, I fear people will look at my work on this issue, particularly on Justin Berry and presume I have some kind of a pro-pedophile position. I explicitly oppose adult-child sex and wish there to be no mistake on anyone's part about that. --Ssbohio 04:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great post. Can I state my view as well? I've never seen a case made against adult-child sex that has convinced me. In fact, I think the only case against adult-child sex that I've seen was arguing that children were unable to consent to have sex. It doesn't seem like that to me. They are able to consent to have sex with other children, and they do it all the time, and that is only natural. Many of the thoughts of children having sex with adults disturb me, but I don't see why this wouldn't be due to factors other than the fact that they're a child and an adult. It seems easier to think of adult-child sex as abusive than to think of adult-adult sex as abusive, perhaps because it is so easy to abuse a child. It could also be that I am under the influence of a prejudice. I can, however, picture situations in which sexual relations between children and adults are positive for both parties. For instance, when Shane got a hand job from a prostitute, he was happy about it, and he told his friends at school about it. I don't know if children younger than 8 or 9 would be any interested in having sex with adults, though. I wish I could use my own memories to try to find that out, but I can't remember whether at that age I felt sexually attracted to older people or not. At 10, I certainly did. I also don't really know if you need to be sexually attracted to someone in order to have a sexual relation. I know that in some places parents masturbate their children, and I don't know whether this is considered a sexual relation or not. It's certainly positive for the child, though, and there would be no problem with the one doing the masturbation also enjoying it. Back to attraction, I haven't seen anyone proving (or attempting to prove, for that matter) that younger children never feel attracted to adults. Thus I don't have any basis to condemn those who advocate the abolition of the age of consent, and not to consider their movement a valid one. It also seems to me that there are many good-faith reasons why many people wish to continue having an established age of consent, and there may even be good reasons for it. I don't know if I would actively support and participate in the "pro-pedophile" movement, though, except to support bringing the age of consent down to 10, which I think that would be positive, and for increasing people's acceptance of people as young as 10 being able to have sex with people of any age. A.Z. 05:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the assertion that adult-child sex is an acceptable practice is a non-starter. A prepubescent child is physiologically and psychologically immature, as well as being almost wholly dependent upon the network of adults in his or her life for material and emotional well-being. I have seen nothing (and further, I can imagine nothing) that would convince me that such a child is in a position to make a freee and informed decision to consent to sexual relations. Let's say there is one child mature enough to give informed consent, and one adult pure enough not to take advantage of that child's nature: would I, then, alter my opinion? No. Even granting your premise, logic dictates that I'd have to assume that the number of such positive and irreproachable adult-child pairings would be infinitessimally small. Just as the speed limit is set considering the needs of the vast majority of drivers, rather than the small number who may be safe driving at 100 miles/hr, the age of consent needs to be set to provide a safe environment for the vast majority of children, even if it takes license with the liberty of the very small number who may be able to fend for themselves. Ages of consent between 14 & 16 appear to have a plurality of support among nations. I have no objection to such ages, but your proposal that the age of 10 be adopted in their place is beyond my comprehension. Ten? Seriously? Forgive me, but I find the idea incredible. --Ssbohio 23:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're assuming that a lot of maturity is needed in order for a person to give informed consent, but I don't think it necessarily is. You can offer many types of food for a child to eat, and the child will choose only the foods that taste good, and refuse the foods that have a bad taste. So the child will give their consent for you to give more of the good tasting food to them, and refuse to consent to eat more of the bad tasting food.

The information that the child needs to know in order to make this decision and consent or not consent to be given the food is how the food tastes. Of course, the child may not have all the information needed in order to decide whether to eat a food that has a certain food additive or not. In this case, they are unable to give informed consent, because the child is not intelligent enough to understand all the consequences or eating and not eating food with food additives. So someone with more intelligence needs to make this decision for them.

Likewise, I think an adult willing to have sex with a child could start foreplaying with the child, and this adult should be able to evaluate whether the child's response to this is positive or negative, just like with the food.

I don't think most very young children would have the intelligence and maturity needed to choose to have a relationship such as that of boyfriends, nor do I think a very young child is likely to have the maturity and intelligence needed to decide whether they should get married or not. But choosing to have sex or not seems to be an instinctive choice that doesn't take maturity nor intelligence for one to make. A.Z. 01:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Sourced statement on adult-child sex

You said "restore sourced statement that adult-child sex fits the definition of child sexual abuse." I had tagged the article, then I created a section on the talk page to address this issue. No one made any comment, so I removed the sentence. Why don't say your opinion on that section? A.Z. 05:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Had I seen the talk page section, I would have let you know my rationale for restoring the text. As it is, I improved the reference by including a verbatim quote from the source document. In any regard, the statement is directly sourced to the document published by the University of Pennsylvania. I'm happy to discuss it further, but, while it's being discussed, I believe the statement should not be removed. --Ssbohio 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a deletion review

I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge consensus

This shows I am not alone in believing consensus was achieved and has been achieved. Please can you comment on why you think it shopuldn't be merged, I don't base my arguments on attacking you or why I believe you are whatever and you shouldn't do so either, its certainly nmot the kind of argument that is taken seriously on wikipedia. First night with internet in the house (the office is only 15 yards away but it is in another building) and this happens. Sigh, SqueakBox 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you cite is one of the five who lined up to agree with you before you invoked cloture less than 24 hours into the discussion and made the merge. Unlike Flyer22 above, you made no effort to make sure that interested parties knew about your latest attempt to do away with this article. If my mother had had emergency surgery today instead of Thursday, I might never have seen what you've attempted. As it is, when 10,000 characters disappear from an article on my watchlist, I'm liable to take an interest. You based your argument on begging the question and running a short discussion with a paucity of participation, then doing exactly what you have agitated to do all along. You compounded that by slapping me in the face and addressing my contribution of the article as unworthy of your consideration. Do I have a problem with your personal conduct? Absolutely. I came away with the feeling that (for the first time since we've been dealing with each other) you were being rude, arrogant, disingenuous and utterly dismissive. Is that why I reverted your deletion of content from this article? Absolutely not. There was no consensus for your proposal at AfD, no consensus at DRV, etc. Saying there is now a consensus to do what you've been proposing for a while now in multiple fora and lining up 5 editors who agree in a "discussion" that closed less than 24 hours after it opened does not (in & of itself) establish consensus. --Ssbohio 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of words that disappeared numbered less than 50, the rest were merged into the CSA article, and this discussion has gone on since adult-child sex was at rfd. Given the creator of the article subverting the rfd was banned in part for his creation of said article IMO it is absolutely essential that we back the arbcom on this one with a quick merge. And my behaviour on this has been entirely reasonable and based on consensus throughout. I neither slapped you in the face nor removed more than a few words of your content from wikipedia as the rest I merged into CSA. There clearly is a current consensus for merging in rfd, afd, drv and the talk page and the only place you can try to change that is on the article talk page, SqueakBox 04:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD closed as Keep not Merge. You claimed that the closure was wrong at DRV and you were rebuffed. At the very least, you should accept that the consensus you see there isn't the consensus that was determined procedurally. The process went against you. Whether the content of this article is merged elsewhere or not, at least you can agree that you deleted content from this article, as I stated. That's a plain fact. The slap in the face came when you dismissed me as not being a serious contributor to this article. IMO, it is absolutely essential that we use the consensus-building tools in the project rather than attempting to press any one solution regardless of previous outcomes. If ArbCom wants this article deleted or merged, then arbcom can publish an opinion to that effect. Their decision shouldn't rely on our clairvoyance. Much as I agree with your motives, like it or not, your conduct is an issue. You believe you have consensus and you've attempted to enforce it by aggressive editing. I believe you lack consensus and I've acted to restore deleted content and reopen the discussion that was (in my view) terminated prematurely. --Ssbohio 04:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither me nor many others wish to accept that, and indeed the closer said "Can be renamed or merged at editorial discretion", and we are not deleting any of the content. You should base merge arguments on whether a merge is appropriate not start quoting the afd and drv as if they forbid this, which they don't anyway. I don't see how the article can not be merged if that is the consensus solely because you oppose that consensus, SqueakBox 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it has just been merged again by another user, SqueakBox 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've put words in my mouth. Editing changes to this article rely on consensus. Consensus is not established by ending discussion when you get the answer you want, nor by leaving opposing views out of the discussion. I haven't quoted the AFD or DRV as forbidding this, just as saying that there is No Consensus. No consensus ≠ consensus. Using a finding of no consensus to claim consensus is a curious bit of doublespeak on your part. Alleging that I've said things I haven't only further damages the collegiality between us as fellow editors. I'll gladly reiterate my rationale against merging, but I expect you to give some kind of notice to interested parties that you're trying to delete the same content you've been trying to delete in at least two other fora. Whether or not the content appears elsewhere, it's been deleted from this article. --Ssbohio 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec'd) So you are now reverting this against more than one editor and knowingly breaking 3rr. What are your arguments for this behaviour? Do you really think that this will help you achieve your goal? Especially as you have chosen so far not to give any cogent arguments about why we should not merge on the talk page. What I see is that making a merge more not less likely with your actions tonight, SqueakBox 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not breaking 3rr. I'm reverting what I take as a cross between vandalism and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. My goal is to have a discussion. No discussion can take place in the face of unilateral aggression. You have yet to have a meaningful discussion of the issue, since you've so far insisted on keeping the discussion hush-hush and not informing anyone who has already made it clear they have a view to express, me included. My cogent arguments were already made at AFD and they appeared to have some support. Your end run around that process is not something to support. I will make my argument against merging tomorrow. I'm going to bed tonight. I have actual life & death issues to work out. This is trivia by comparison. I'd expect, at the very least, that you could respect that. --Ssbohio 05:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing 2 highly experienced users of vandalism isn't a very good 3rr excuse, and your claims I an acting unilaterally are evidently not true. We have argued this hugely as a project but I am happy to keep discussing based on arguments for or against merging. But I won't engage in arguments involving alleged vandalism, and while your arguments had support at afd so did mine at rfd, afd, drv and the talk page, so vandalism? SqueakBox 05:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When process comes up withno consensus and you stop a subsequent discussion after less than 24 hours when it consists of five users who agree with you, then it is a form of vandalism in that knowing better is incumbent upon an experienced editor. You should know that this topic is far too controversial for a partisan to judge consensus on his own proposal to delete the article and replace it with a redirect when the AFD & the DRV both showed no consensus. If you want to build a consensus, then do so without giving short shrift to any opposing perspective and without unilaterally determining consensus and deleting the article. Unilateral, by the way, means "one-sided" not "acting alone." The word fits the situation There's more than one side to this question and you're acting from one of them. --Ssbohio 05:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly was not stopping the discussion. IMO your solitary opposition to the merge is not a reason to stop the merge, and your vandalism insinuations really aren't helpful to anybody. Actaully if there are sides then both sides supported the merge (eg Homologeo) but I don't really see this having been a case of sides, SqueakBox 05:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see my opposition as solitary, according to the AFD & the DRV. Perhaps if you opened the discussion up by asking other interested parties, it would have more representative content. I'm not insinuating vandalism -- deleting a page (even if it's replaced with a redirect) when no consensus was found (more than once in the last few days) is (to me) either a well-dressed form of page-blank vandalism or an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. The "sides" I refer to are those favoring or opposing keeping this article. It's a binary choice. The article either exists or it doesn't. No matter how hard Tony Blair wishes, there is no third way. --Ssbohio 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier tonight the merge consensus was 100% and I am still convinced that merge is the outcome we will see, SqueakBox 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately one hen in 10,000 has two heads. If I select my sample carefully, I could "prove" that all hens are two-headed. The broader discussions completed just days ago did not show the consensus you suddenly found among a handful of editors to delete this article's content & merge it into CSA. Rather, it was the narrower scope of your discussion that allowed you to attain the consensus you sought. Open the discussion up & you'll get a more representative result. --Ssbohio 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to claim you have the consensus in this way isn't a valid argument on wikiepdia given what actually happened and the current consensus to merge. The discussion is whether to merge, that isn't narrow and it is valid, ally uop can do is argue your point on the talk page, SqueakBox 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have NOT claimed to have consensus. Cite where I stated I did have consensus. If you cannot, then admit your error. --Ssbohio 07:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssbohio, although you obviously believe you were doing the right thing, you did violate WP:3RR. You undid the merge 4 times, because you thought it shouldn't be done. You do not represent the entire AfD/DRV/RfD/{{mergeto}} process, so you do not get to be the sole arbiter of whether or not there has been enough discussion on the issue, and that purpose certainly doesn't give you permission to revert-war as much as you like. Mango juice^talk 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you think I violated 3RR. I understand why you think I violated 3RR. I disagree. Lack of consensus to delete this article was amply demonstrated at AFD & DRV. To persist in deleting the article & replacing it with a redirect when the "consensus" to do so consisted of five editors in a discussion that lasted 23 hours, compared to the AFD & DRV processes that had already run, is, for an experienced editor either page-blank vandalism or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Either way, what I did is what I felt the five pillars required of me. Why is it, in your estimation, that I can't make the determination whether there is a consensus to delete, but SqueakBox can? The only difference that's apparent is that you agree with what SqueakBox has been trying to do for weeks. What else is there to explain your deprecatory approach to me as compared to SqueakBox? --Ssbohio 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you are empowered to interpret consensus and act on it is not the question: yes, you are, just as all of us are. However, the 3RR is there so that people, after a certain point, realize it is time to stop acting unilaterally and return to discussion. There are exceptions to the 3RR, such as when you are undoing simple and obvious vandalism (which this is not, not by a long shot, and even suggesting that it is violates WP:AGF). This is not one of those exceptions, so you violated the rule. Next time, open up the discussion at WP:ANI before it gets to the 4-revert point, and things will work themselves out. Mango juice^talk 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because AfD defaults to "keep" in a no consensus situation doesn't mean that editing can't proceed afterwards. Mango juice^talk 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive a difference between the wholesale destruction of an article and the pastoral vision of editing proceeding afterwards. Do you? If there was consensus to Delete, then the AFD would have closed that way or the DRV would have reversed the Keep finding. An experienced editor acting directly against the result of Wikipedia process like AFD is, indeed, a form of vandalism. It doesn't take an extra bit to discern a lack of consensus when it couldn't be established in three attempts in little more than a week. While I agree that I would've been better off allowing the wholesale destruction of the article despite the lack of consensus, rather than boldly reverting it, I categorically refute the assertion that there was a policy violation in my actions. I do note that you have said nothing about SqueakBox's actions in this regard, preferring to focus the accusations on me. I'd hope that we're not at the point where user conduct policy is being used to enforce a point of view not supported by Wikipedia consensus-building processes. Even-handed application of policy is one thing; unilateral application of policy to serve other ends is quite different. 3RR is in place to support the five pillars, not to thwart their intent. This is a consensus-driven project. I agree with SqueakBox on most things. After the third re-blanking of the article, there was no more good faith around to assume. Besides, no one seems to assume what I did was in good faith. I'm being accused & pilloried in new and exciting ways every day. I'm here to write an encyclopedia not a drama. --Ssbohio 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I can say about SqueakBox is the following: he's been trying to resolve a tough issue. He acted in good faith in merging in the first place, based on not only the comments on the talk page at the time but the sum total of the prior discussion in which a lot of people expressed a preference for the article to be merged. The subsequent repeated reverts were not a good idea, but he didn't go beyond 3 like you did. And as for your first question: this is absolutely not "the wholesale destruction of the article" considering that basically all the article material was merged into the other article. Merging is not the same as blanking or deleting. Mango juice^talk 03:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've all been trying to resolve a tough issue. The difference is, I get castigation from you because of it, and SqueakBox gets what? Nothing? If you're taking an interest in conduct, take an interest even-handedly. If you're taking an interest in content, then don't use conduct as a proxy.

Merging to CSA wasn't a majority opinion at AFD; It definitely wasn't the consensus opinion. After days at RfD, AfD, & DRV, no consensus to merge was reached. Suddenly, SqueakBox finds consensus in less than a day among a handful of editors. He left a whole bunch of people out of his last consensus-building process, and he (predictably) got the result he wanted out of it. At some point, we all have to look at the outcome of a process and accept that it didn't go the way we wanted. SqueakBox hasn't done that. He's gone to forum after forum after forum looking to have his way. I don't call that consensus-building.

As far as merging/blanking/deleting, I'll say this: Consensus did not form to delete the article in any of the fora he tried. He then proposed a merge and acted on it less than a day later with a paucity of input from others and no notice to interested parties. How is it that you don't see that merging content into CSA required that content be deleted from adult-child sex? It's a deletion, incontrovertibly. He deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect. He could merge the content into ten other articles and he still erased the article we're discussing. Adult-child sex is a larger topic than child sexual abuse. Deleting the article on that topic in the face of repeated findings of no consensus to do so is, necessarily, acting without a consensus. Gaming the system by proposing a solution in forum after forum until geting the desired result is gaming the system by engaging in forum shopping. None of those actions are geared toward creating consensus where multiple reviewers have pronounced that none exists. --Ssbohio 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssbohio, you cannot seriously claim I haven't been castigated for what happened last night nor that I got the result I wanted. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, I won't defend a claim I never made, so please stick to things I've actually stated. However, I can seriously claim that Mangojuice hasn't meted out nearly the ration of fertilizer to you that they have to me. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. There is an appearance of impropriety in the disparate treatment of two editors where one is in agreement on a content dispute and the other is not. Does the content dispute cause the disparate treatment? I don't think so, but it does raise the question. As to whether you've got what you wanted, this subject area is a fire you've stoked religiously for months now. You didn't get the deletion. You didn't get the redirect (so far). You did get the controversy and the drama. --Ssbohio 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude towards me is what I am referring to. IMO you have been castigating me far more than anyone has castigated you (castigar is Spanish for to punish). I was very much hoping to avoid the controversy and drama and it was A.Z. who stoked this fire, and not entirely alone(as you can reda from the CS and CAS histories), from the day it became a redirect' so to suddenly put the blame for all the controversy and drama onto me is simply not fair. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going down this road again. So, this time, point to where I've put the blame for all the controversy and drama onto you and I'll respond then. I can't see where I've done that.

That's interesting about the Spanish verb "castigar." It's not too surprising, considering the Latin root of Spanish. Does it conjugate like other -ar verbs? The English connotation is more one of criticism than punishment.

As far as my attitude toward you, let me be clear: I like you & I agree with much of what you do here.

I take great exception, however, to your actions as an editor in this matter. You've treated process like a magic eight ball, coming back multiple times until the answer you wanted came up. That's the danger of establishing consensus based on a relatively small sample set. If you resample the population enough times, you can get any result you desire.

You haven't addressed yourself to the substantive objections I've raised to merging this article out of existence, which makes working toward consensus a bit difficult. I want there to be an adult-child sex article that we can both be content with, because that title covers the topic more fully than does child sexual abuse. I've approached you on & off Wiki to come to an understanding with you on editing these controversial articles. I just feel like I'm not getting anywhere in my dialogue with you, and it frustrates me. --Ssbohio 06:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion claioms

Plerase point otu where I have deleted anything? or else stop making the claim, SqueakBox 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I provided diffs. You either AfD'd the article or you blanked it and replaced it with a redirect. Whether some of the content was merged into the other article or not, it was still deleted from the original article. Delete: Destroy, blot out, efface --Ssbohio 06:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) From WP:AN/3RR There was certainly not either deletion or gaming the system, please stop attacking all those editors who think differently to you, SqueakBox 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting an end run around the lack of consensus you found in AFD & DRV is, to me, a form of gaming the system. I'm not attacking you as an editor; I respect you. I'm attacking your tactics and your intentions, because they rely on narrowing the participation in the discussion and forum shopping until you found an answer you liked. If you wanted to gain consensus, you could've invited participation as broad as that in the AfD or the DRV. Instead, you narrowed the field and got a more simpatico result. --Ssbohio 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed no more content than i would have in a normal edit tweaky edit, all the content went to CSA and so nothing was deleted and the page was not blanked it was redirected as per consensus, a consensus that is still currently so. And this was originally a redirect until A.Z. ignored consensus and debate to create an article, an act which is a part of what has led to his indefinite block. So you can't claim consensus anywhere on wikipedia and i suggest you give an argument on the talk page like everyone else is if you wish your opinion to be included. I don't believe your referring to what happened is a reasonable argument in the current situation given what actually happened in the rfd, afd and drv, SqueakBox 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article was removed & replaced with a redirect. Wherever else you put the content, it was deleted from the article. Deleted. Not edited. Not tweaked. Deleted. Also, I'm not claiming consensus. I'm claiming you've been repeatedly told that you lack consensus to destroy this article. --Ssbohio 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted from the project, though, which is what counts. Instead it was put in a much more visible article where it was much more likely to be read. Remember that none of us owns any article, or any content. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was, nonetheless, deleted from this article, which is what I've stated all along. You've disagreed with me, then refuted straw man assertions I never made. This constant attempt to put words in my mouth then argue against things I never claimed is wearing thin. I say you deleted content from this article. You disagree. Was there less content in this article when you finished with it? Yes. Content was deleted from this article. Q.E.D.

The content was put into a much more narrowly-crafted article, one that only covers a portion of the topic. That's not an improvement, it is, like a power grab, an attempt to control where, when, & how this topic is covered on Wikipedia by aonly allowing the slices that fit into the article you prefer, despite its providing incomplete coverage. Remember that none of us owns any article, or any content. Thanks, --Ssbohio 05:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I am responding to how I read your comments, please explain yourself carefully. Far more people will read the CSA article, especially those wanting know;ledge on the subject, and giving this argticle space in the CSA article is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia and for NPOV in the CSA article. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I write my comments explicitly, not implicitly. It doesn't serve communication to read anything into them beyond what I've written. My objecting to the deletion of content from this article isn't a denial that the content was inserted into a different article, for example.

People wanting knowledge about child sexual abuse can read its article, and people wanting knowledge about adult-child sex can read that article. The two comprise closely-related but not identical subjects. Child sexual abuse, for example, can't cover kinds of adult-child sex that aren't culturally defined as abuse or any question of adult-child sex prior to the concept's having been created. The CSA-or-nothing view erects a fence and tries to keep other information out. The both-articles-have-a-place view says that all the information on this topic has a place, but neither article covers the whole topic from the same perspective. It's hard for me to see the advantage of deliberately limiting pre-Modern & non-Western perspectives by insisting on only having an article with a value-laden title, even though I see the utility of that approach at defending against pedophile POV-pushing. --Ssbohio 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My focus was entirely on trying to understand what you had written, not reading anything into it. IMO those who want to rerad about CSA should read the adult-child sex section as part of our CSA coverage, hardly anyone has ever heard of adult-child sex. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's this constant string of equivocating and quibbling that makes me wonder why we're even talking. WHen I say something about you deleting content from this article, you deny it, but address yourself to a complaint I never made (that you deleted the content from the project). I talk about whether Mangojuice has castigated you similarly to me and you deny it, citing the fact that I've castigated you. Non sequitur arguments like these don't bear on the issues I've raised, nor do they support the denials you've given; I don't see where they serve any purpose other than to obfuscate the issue. If I complain about X, you can't defend X by pointing out Y. That's a textbook example of a non sequitur argument. Similarly, you've used straw man arguments where points I've raised have been distorted in order to create an easier target to knock down. If we're going to get anywhere, we have to start dialing in to what exactly we are asserting, which assertions we are defending, and which we are refuting. This issue is complex enough without adding additional non sequitur and straw man arguments. --Ssbohio 06:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

If you are going to revert please don't leave a great mess behind you for someopne else to clear up. Such lazy reverting merely damages the project, see Wikipedia:Edit war. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further disingenuous, near-trolling comments on my talk page? You created the mess when you merged the article against consensus. It was yours to clean up. I'm glad you did. --Ssbohio 03:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not touched the article today as you can see for yourself so what you are talking about eludes mebut you messed up, as you did last week and were told, so there are no excuses, and your defending your own sloppiness by blaming it on me is nothing more than justifying your own edit warring in a lazy manner. If you are going to continue with this line of actions I suggest you do not leave a mess and blame it on me again. If you think asking you not to edit war and leave a mess is trolling please refresh yourself as to our policies and how we do things here. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically do not put or blame the edits of another editor on me ever again. I hope this is understood, i am not responsible for the edits of other editors and your implying that I am is in the worst possible bad faith. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's alright for thee but not for me? See also hypocrisy. You are correct in that I mistook Pol64's adding substantially the same information to the CSA article as you did for your having done the same thing days ago. Nonetheless, the mess you attempt to blame me for isn't mine. The editor who added the content is the one to whom you should vent your spleen. --Ssbohio 03:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and do not make baseless accusations of hypocrisy on my part. I don't work here for people to take pot-shots at my integrity. Then mess was yours the moment you reverted Pol64. Taking responsibility for mistakes and trying to do better is the way to create a good encyclopedia and become a better editor. Your comment that it was Pol64 who made the mess is simply false as he had merged the adult-child article into CSA[1] and you are being disingenuous in blaming others for your own sloppiness and especially when the editors you blame were not being sloppy in the way that you were. And you are an experienced editor so you should no better than to make the mistake let alone not take responsibility for it. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blamed me for a mess that Pol64 created, then you took me to task for opposing your blaming me for it. That is, however you want to slice it, something I view as hypocrisy, not as a pejorative label, but by its dictionary definition. You condemned me for an act that you, yourself had done. The act was hypocritical, but you're not a hypocrite, as that was unlike what I've seen of you in the past. --Ssbohio 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting another mess edit of yours

Here you state I had reverted you, actually that was not the case, if you look here you will see your edit was such a mess and I didn't know what you wanted to do that i reverted it as what in a newbie would be identified as vandalism, though it was clearly a mistake on your part. Search for the gibberish terms Juvhttp and Edit this pageenile. What annoys me is you are accusing me of edit warring to fix your mess, and this is the second mess of yours I have fixed tonight. What I did was not a revert it was fixing a mess so please take more care in not providing inaccurate edit summaries to cover up your sloppiness, I don't have endless patience. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the edit in question, in the course of doing other things, I inadvertently pasted something from my clipboard into the middle of the word juvenile, creating juvhttp & pageenile, as well as the gibberish in between. You are once again bearing false witness against me. I never once said you reverted me. You removed the content that you had previously substantially added, after Pol64 added it again as part of his/her attempt to force a merge against consensus. Until that point, I hadn't edited CSA today. I edited the article, making the editing mistake noted above, and adding to the edit summary that the mess wasn't mine, as you had accused. Pol64 was the user you were reverting at that point, but you were accusing me of making the mess, and later on of being lazy and of attacking you. As I've said before, it's not you, it's your work. If I said I didn't like your dog, that would be attacking you. For the record, I like all your pets, and I like the fact that your userpage tells me about you as a person, outside of this Wiki. I was mistaken in referring to the content you were removing as having been added by you, when it was merely very similar to content you had added. I apologize unreservedly for that erroneous conclusion. --Ssbohio 04:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually know each other though you know a little bit about me but I certainly don't hold any personal malice towards you, thanks for the apology. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad of that. My editing has been a bit more in haste than usual, both because I have final exams coming up next week and because the Internet connection I'm on here keeps dropping out, so I feel like I have to play Beat the Clock every time I edit. Also, let me know if you've had further thoughts on my email. I'd really like to see what we can do together. There has to be some way for you and me to synergize. Thanks for being understanding. --Ssbohio 04:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I though internet outages only occurred in the third world. Having said that I bought a new modem the other week and the endless internet outages I suffered have stopped. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm up at my mother's place helping her as she recovers from surgery for diverticulitis. I have access to a WiFi connection, but it's a weak signal, so I never know whether the connection I have right now will stay up for long. Plus, my mother could call for me at any moment, which doesn't help. Anyway, just let me know where to send the Marmite and we'll be all set. --Ssbohio 06:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

hbdragon88 RfA

Well, if you want to really know my opinion of it now, I find the debate to be extraordinarily petty (on my part) and kind of ridiculous. I used a talk page to justify changing it to "and"? And downplaying the technological prowess of MediaWiki? I acknowledge now that attempting to force the change was a bad thing, the approach was wrong, and I should have carried out a talk page discussion before trying to change it back, or after seeing it change back not to crusade and change all & to & to make a point. The MOS is flexible and consensus on talk pages determine when the MOS is ambigious and isn't definitively clear.

I don't see you to as a problem editor. In fact I congratulate you on boldness and sensitivity in handling the WP:BLP minefield of Justin Berry, having to be ever viligant and careful about sourcing negative facts, especially after Jimbo Wales personally deleted the article himself. As is my convention, I deliberately do the completely safe, cursory, non-controversial (as much as possible) edits. Nobody is going to yell at me for moving "high school years" up in a biographical manner (before it was being deleted as unsourced material), or achiving the talk page, or, as I thought, changing the & to and. And no one's particular feelings are hurt, or real damage wrought, when I source gameplay information on video game articles.

As for the wikilink issue, can I see the diff? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say right off the bat that what you've said above has gone a long way to allay my concerns. I've already sampled your contribs and find you to be a thoroughly capable editor. It was a nagging concern in my mind that, had you had admin tools during our conflict, you would have been tempted to use them. I'm glad to report that I no longer feel that concern; You're not the same editor you were 17 months ago, & neither am I.

As for the wikilink issue, an admin who has since left the project deleted almost 700 revisions from the history of Justin Berry, including diffs from the time of our disagreement. What it boils down to is: I was adding dates in the form [[24 July]] and you thought they should be added as [[July 24]]. I think you see now that the date format in the Wiki markup is superseded by the user's preferences, and I see now that it's better to be consistent, even when the inconsistency is invisible to most users. I'm prepared to waive the point since I'm now satisfied with regard to your RfA.

Finally, concerning the Justin Berry article, it's in even worse shape now than when you and I were tussling over ampersands. The same admin deleted the article history once, had his deletion reverted by a fellow admin, then deleted the history again a couple of months later. He has never said what the BLP-violating issues were, so they can be avoided in the future, and, to my mind, the deletion hasn't been supported. After your successful nom, would you be interested in taking a disinterested look at the issue and discussing it with some of the more-involved admins? I feel that the deleting admin may have used his BLP concerns in order to preserve a "preferred" version of the article. To me, this particular article has been an overall failure in terms of the wiki process. It's been very difficult to achieve a stable version.

To paraphrase Winnie the Pooh), it's awfully hard to be brave when you're a very small user. The current article ignores much of the published information about Berry in favor of the telling of Berry's story in a way favorable to one side. So, would you be willing to turn your methodical nature to this thorny issue and help create a balanced article? --Ssbohio (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno...Wikipedia is fun when the issues are simple and clear, and I dislike getting bogged down into minefield issues. I've been tearing through the CSD backlog, for instance, instead of mucking up in AFDs (though most of those are fairly non-controversial). I don't think I read it very closely, but –

Hm. I can see the diff now, and I don't see what was wrong with it. I knew that the truth about justin was a bit leery. But the bit about Eichenwald and his payment to Berry? It seems reliable enough, nothing particularly bad. But it's been deleted by two very respectable editors (Sandifer and Bebeck). Did you try asking a Village Pump for whether they agreed or not? hbdragon88 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a stagnant Bebeck-Sandifer-Ssbohio conflict. Sandifer seems to disappear and not acutally say why he did what he did. I'm wondering too about teh question you posed to him on 30 October 2007, and why he didn't respond to it other than ask, "You're joking, right?" hbdragon88 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Sandifer deleted the article, Beback restored it when Sandifer didn't back up his action. A month or so later, Sandifer deleted it again and Beback explicitly stated that he didn't object. Another admin, JoshuaZ, was considering undeleting the history, but Jimbo voiced an opinion, which everyone immediately took as holy writ (except me). Forgive my intemperate language, but the Justin Berry article has been the source of a mind-boggling level of frustration for me. I want more facts in the article. Sandifer (& others) want fewer facts in the article. On balance, I favor more facts over fewer. Eichenwald has (after the information about his $1000 to Berry was removed, etc. from Berry's article) admitted that he gave Berry more like $4000 over the time he knew Berry online. Berry, being part-victim & part-perpetrator, attracts POV-pushers from all sides. Sigh. --Ssbohio 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I've glanced through that article before, and let me tell you, it's almost like maybe it belongs on WikiNews for a while - a month? A year? See what other RSs show up, what 3rd party sources put together, etc. Maybe after a bit of that, more of the "truth" will be accessible. I can totally understand and empathize that article being a source of WikiStress for you! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one article has made me most willing to pack in the two years I've spent editing here and take up a less stressful hobby (like bullfighting, maybe). I wasn't the creator of the article, a self-described pedophile was. I came in after Jimbo (personally) deleted the article. I spent the first part of its life defending it mostly against pro-pedophile & vandal edits. Now, I'm dealing with people like Phil Sandifer, who has repeatedly used his admin tools to enforce his preferred outcome in this content dispute; Will Beback, who reversed himself to agree with Sandifer after undoing his admin deletion of the article, and SqueakBox who has a passionate drive against manifestations of pedophilia that sometimes overwhelms other considerations. What stresses me the most is the continuing unwillingness (particularly on Sandifer's part) to make plain his objections so I can do something about them. The number of reliable sources he has denigrated is astonishing; That he's backed up his editorial judgment with his admin tools is appalling. This is the first case where I've seriously considered formal dispute resolution, but I fear my lack of experience there versus Sandifer's home field advantage. If it weren't for people like you, Dev920, JoshuaZ, and others, I'd've walked away already. We have effectively insulated a sex offender from the verifiable, reliably sourced, public evidence of his criminal activities. All I want is for the article to present the facts (as we know them to be) and allow the reader to make up his own mind. How do I proceed? --Ssbohio (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola

Here I am canvassing again but hopefully in a fair way. I'd like your opinion on this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you invited me without recommending a course of action, I'll smile & go look. Though, I'm not sure I like the title. It would seem like anything on that topic would also fit under child sexual abuse. --Ssbohio 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you too...

...have spoken truth to power. That's the first time I've seen Giano compared to a Quaker, even indirectly. Well said. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank-you for your honest and constructive comments at my RFA. I do appreciate your concern, and recognize that it is a real problem when certain members of the community feel like they have authority or superior clout. Being a user-contributed resource, Wikipedia needs a constant stream of fresh perspective and energy. If we allow an atmosphere where new users feel like there is a hierarchy of authority obstructing their participation, we will squelch the creativity and growth of the project. I hope you can see from my reply that I do not see adminship as a shiny sherriff's badge or aristocratic symbol. I really do just want a mop to clean up the messes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ssbohio, there is still time to change your !vote on my RFA. I would really appreciate either further dialogue with you on your perspective, or you changing your !vote to support. It seems you drew a strong conclusion of my intentions from just my answer on RFA standard candidate question #1. I wonder if there are additional evidences or reasons to be concerned? It would really be great to have a clean slate (X/0/0) at the end of this RFA, and your opinion is very important. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the losing end of a battle with a particularly egregious abuser of his admin powers at Justin Berry. Since you have opined that adminship goes beyond the mop & bucket work that I think it's confined to, I'm open to being convinced of that, or to being convinced that what you meant isn't what I understood. Just clear the situation up for me & I'll be happy. --Ssbohio (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity to further explain my answer to RFA question #1, in the hope that it will be less offensive to you. My answer was intending to contrast the typical mop and bucket tools from those that require greater understanding and practice. So I was talking about two subsets of mop-and-bucket tasks, not 'the mop-and-bucket tasks from all the other administrative tasks. As I understand it, there are essentially 11 administrative tasks:

Deleting pages and images
- Performing Speedy deletion
- Closing XfD and performing associated deletion per concensus
- Ending Prod and deleting as appropriate
Undeleting pages and images
Merging page histories
Performing requested moves
Protecting or unprotecting pages and images
Editing a protected page
Protecting a non-existent page
Editing the interface
Block a user, IP or range of IPs
Unblock a user, IP or range
Using admin revert (rollback)

Some of these functions are really straight forward, and were in the group I was wanting to call "typical mop and bucket" functions. These are functions where as an inexperienced administrator, I would be highly unlikely to cause a worse mess by making a mistake. Yet others are likley to get messed-up, and still others have political ramifications, and generally require community concensus before taking the action. My answer was intending to say that I would forge into the former right away and wait until I fully understood the procedures and pitfalls of the latter.

I hope this is a better explanation of my mindset on the role of wikipedia administrators. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy reply. Your more detailed explanation alleviates my concern. To me, all the tasks you listed above are "mop & bucket" tasks, albeit some require more mopping skill than others. I will point out a couple of things, however: It's perfectly appropriate for any community member to close an AfD. It's not a decision reserved for admins; And admins also act to completely delete particular page revisions or entire page histories, as well as the tasks you listed. In fact, it's this last one that forms the basis for my dismay at what happened in the Justin Berry article. An admin, for what he saw as good reason, deleted 600+ revisions from the article's history and consistently refused to provide support for his action or for his contention about problems with the article that he "solved" by deleting them. --Ssbohio (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine and misleading

You recently commented:[2]

Will says: "The ArbCom needs to be more responsive and less opaque," yet his actions with regard to the Justin Berry article have been not merely opaque but absolutely [Derogatory use of "Byzantine"|Byzantine] and misleading. Similarly poor candidates ^{1,2} have withdrawn. --Ssbohio (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever been intentionally misleading or 'Byzantine' about that article. Sure, biographies of living people are often delicate. Imagine if the article were about you. I think I've supported an honest and direct approach while maintaining important BLP limitations. I'd be happy to discuss the matter here or on my talk page as there's apparently been a misunderstanding. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Will. I'll give a couple of examples of what I see as opaque, Byzantine, or misleading statements on your part:

You supported forking information about Timothy Ryan Richards off into its own article. You then turned around and advocated for the article's deletion. Forgive me my bluntness, but were you misleading when you supported spinning off the content or misleading when you advocated the spun off article's deletion?
You reverted Phil Sandifer's history deletion on the Justin Berry article, then, paradoxically, supported his doing the same thing over again, without explaining your change of heart, and neither you nor Sandifer ever explained the problem. Since neither of you elected to cite any but the most vague and nebulous of reasons, my view (there was no BLP-violating material in the article as it existed) stands unopposed. These radical rescissions have been made by Sandifer and supported by you, all for no apparent reason.

I know that this is a tough topic. My heart went out to Berry after I read the NYT article. However, it's become exceedingly clear that the Times exposé was both factually and ethically compromised. I've spent, over time, a great deal of energy trying to keep this article from becoming a vehicle for the pro-pedophile/anti-pedophile POV conflict that's been rampant in other articles.

There are editors on this project whom I've come to expect not to be trustworthy. What bothers me most about this situation is that you weren't one of them. But now, how can I look at what you've done and the (unintentional) POV-pushing effect of your words and actions and still extend trust to you? How can I support you as a neutral arbitrator when I can't count on you to support NPOV when in my view you didn't stand up in this case? For that matter, how can I be comfortable with your continued adminship? This is disturbing; Moreover, it's disappointing. Where do we go from here? --Ssbohio (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the two issues so we can directly address each without ambiguity or spillover. --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Richards

The article on Justin Berry is about Berry, not about Richards. It was appropriate to move the material out, and let it stand (or not) on its own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Richards is a notable part of the article on Berry, as they allegedly engaged together in a criminal enterprise, with one participant (Berry) getting immunity for helping prosecute the other (Richards). In the same way, Gilo Tunno, Aaron Campbell Brown, and Greg Mitchel are all notable elements of this article.

Second, as to the appropriateness of removing the material on Richards, I categorically refute your assertion. Excising Richards (and the others) from the article places Berry in a false light and misleads the reader as to his status in the ongoing criminal enterprises that the Federal government has prosecuted. The only criminal actor left in this article is Ken Gourlay. The facts of that case tend to paint Berry as a sympathetic victim only. The article now makes no mention of Berry's numerous criminal co-conspirators whatsoever. Is that "appropriate?"

Third, you failed to address one scintilla of my criticism of your actions in this regard. You encouraged the creation of a new article about Richards on Talk:Justin Berry, then, once you had the content out of the Berry article, you completed the flanking maneuver by supporting the deletion of the Richards article. As you ignored my main point, it implies an answer to my question: Was this a deliberate attempt on your part to mislead me into thinking I had your support for a spinoff article? You can't tell me you support creation of the article and also tell AfD that you support deletion of the same article. One of those positions is diametrically opposed to the other. How do you explain your words and your conduct? --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History deletions

Regarding the deletion of the article history, The first time it was done without prior discussion. The second time came after the article had once again grown quite long and a different approach was needed. I don't recall being asked for an explanation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the deletions was discussed beforehand. Phil Sandifer unilaterally deleted essentially the same content & history twice. Once, you disagreed and reverted him. The second time, without explanation, you reversed yourself and supported him. Sandifer never provided facts to support any of his allegations, either of unacceptably "salacious" material, of unreliable sources, or much of anything else.

An editor's opinion shouldn't be the basis for a content decision, especially when he refuses to provide support for that opinion. An admin shouldn't be using his admin tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I opposed his action both on principle (one can't find consensus by bringing a gun to the fight) and on specific grounds (multiple reliable sources, maintaining NPOV, etc). Sandifer did a lot of arguing, but he couldn't even say that he'd read the sources he was challenging, much less establish why they should be treated as unreliable when other similar sources fall well within policy. By your inexplicable agreement, you're saying that you support his action, but, like Sandifer, not giving any factual basis for your determination. No one has to ask you to discuss your position; That's what talk pages are there for. But, to bypass your semantic objection, I'll ask: Why did you support Sandifer's second (essentially identical) history deletion but oppose his first? --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School Sign.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School Sign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calvin 1998 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex

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)[reply]

Err, we dont discuss this on Penwhale's talk page but on the adult-child sex talk page, your edit looks deliberately disruptive to me given where you chose to post. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I wasn't discussing it there, by any English-language understanding of the word discussion. I was asking him to have a look at the edit conflict, as he had been involved in thwarting a previous attempt (by you) to ram a redirect down our throats when no consensus to do so was demonstrated. Your edit here looks like trolling, given the lie you chose to write. Your apology would be appreciated. Thanks, --SSB ohio 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no conflict till you came along. Instead there were 7 editors in broad agreement to redirect the page, and your description of the previous incident makes me think I was wrong to assume any good faith in you as an editor, how am i trolling to point out your lack of courtesy towards those 7 editors, you couldn't even be bothered to explain your edit warring. I suggest you don't accuse me of lying, especially asd you are clearly unable to back up your (yet another) vicious accusation. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no conflict till you came along -- I wasn't the first to revert the reidirect, and I'll wager I won't be the last. Therefore, your statement of fact is inaccurate. You are either ignorant or lying.
There were 7 editors in broad agreement to redirect the page -- An error of omission, or a lie by omission? The 7 editors you claim agree aren't the only involved editors.
how am i trolling to point out your lack of courtesy -- Because you didn't merely point out my lack of courtesy as you saw it, you instead falsely accused me of having a discussion I didn't have and of attempting to disrupt. To quote WP:TROLL, A troll deliberately exploits weaknesses of human nature or of an online community to upset people. What would your coming here and accusing me of doing things I demonstrably didn't do be but an attempt to exploit weaknesses of human nature in order to upset me?
you couldn't even be bothered to explain your edit warring -- Is one revert considered edit warring to you? It hardly seems a reasonable (or consensus) definition. Also, my edit was explained in my edit summary. So, in this case, you compounded one lie (about my edit) with another (about its being unexplained)

Have I backed up my vicious accusation yet? Would you like a pie chart, Venn diagram, or bar graph? You came to my talk page, spread lies about me, insulted me, then reacted in (feigned?) innocence when I called you on your bull. If you want to have a fight, we'll do that off-wiki. When you're here, I expect you to, at the very least, avoid spreading untruths about me, and to apologize when you're caught doing so. --SSB ohio 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. Accusing me of lying is not acceptable, I am happy to continue this discussion when you have calmed down but not before as your last statements are a truly atrocious breach of basic civility, I bet you do not treat your work colleagues like this. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You lied. Demonstrably. That is a statement of fact. Why you lied is for you to know. That you lied on my talk page is an example of trolling, as well as a truly atrocious breach of basic civility. And, of course, I don't treat my work colleagues like this. None of them would have the temerity to come to me and make fictitious accusations against me. --SSB ohio 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling with idiotic accusations which you can't back up, as you well know. Why are you blaming me for this. I have not touched the article but you have gone hysterical and are blaming me. Please desist now, as it is your uncivil accusations that are the only trolling round here and your hysterical lying accusations are false. You are acting as if you own the article, and merely because 8 editors disagree with your solitary viewpoint you become a rude brat, disgustingly and intolerably rude. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You lied about me. I stated the facts. By denying my even saying what I've said on this very page you show yourself to be not only a liar, but a malicious liar. You can disagree with me, but at least have the testicular fortitude to admit that I've said what I've said & not continually lie about what I've said, not said, or think. I'm not your errand boy; You've no place ordering me about as though I were. Further trolling will be reverted & a user warning issued. --SSB ohio 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a step back, recollect, and then continue.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. reference this edit and this one. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack to say that someone caught in the act of lying is a liar. Squeak made deliberately untrue statements of fact about me. His attacks against me have been vicious, nasty, and fairly personal. I've refuted his false claims, and not for the first time. I note with dismay that you've chosen to single me out for this warning. If you're intending to help this situation, criticizing only one side isn't the way to do it. And, shouldn't you start with a level one template, if you intend to address me with boilerplate? --SSB ohio 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain. I tagged both you and Pol at the (exact) same time. That was the back-and-forth that was pushing the limits of civility. I am not commenting on the issues with Squeak because I am already involved myself with a vicious string of personal attacks at me (and I have responded aggressively at times, though not with the deliberate name-calling and accusations that he has) and thus I feel it would be inappropriate for me to rebuke him at this time as it could be seen as a personal vengence-motivated tagging. I do not refute that you have been attacked or that you have responded in truth, but phrases such as "It's kind of fun seeing how vicious you & Squeak can be over this". Constantly accusing others of lying in the manner in which you have can also be considered attacking. I do not debate that you bring up good points about being misrepresented, but the over-aggressive manner is why the warning (and only a warning, no Noticeboard post, nothing like that). Pol denied even seeing anything wrong with his comments. I have been in the same situation you are in and much more was made of it; I am and was trying to prevent you from ending up in the same position and to step in as a sort of mediator. That is all. I only ask that you calm down a little (difficult, I know, especially when you are being personally attacked as well) and then continue the work. Thanks for your understanding and assumptions of good faith not only on my part, but with all editors. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem assuming good faith with your actions, but question whether tagging my talk page while not tagging Squeak's, however well-intentioned, had the effect (not intent) of diminishing good faith.
As for Pol, I specifically addressed his accusation that I was (to paraphrase & expand their inference) a deranged, delusional pedophile. I demanded that they either provide facts to back up their accusations or withdraw them. And, much as a snarling dog is vicious, such accusations toward a fellow Wikipedian are vicious. I have a good record here, and, unlike Squeak, I haven't kept my record clean with the implicit assistance of angels among the admins. Calling a liar a liar is a statement of fact. Calling a vicious attack vicious is likewise. Were I addressing myself to their personal characteristics, then I could see an argument being made about personal attacks. I've consistently pointed out Squeak's trolling; he has yet to make an overt personal attack against me. Pol came close, but weaseled out of it by merely making an insinuation. As William Shakespeare wrote in Richard II, Mine honour is my life, both grow in one. Take honour from me, and my life is done. Then, dear my liege, mine honour let me try; In that I live, and for that I will die. --SSB ohio 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thank you for understanding.

2. Realize that not tagging Squeak was necessary to preserve my appearance of Good Faith.

3. You are right about accusations being visious. As I believe I've stated - including on the ACS talk page - you are justified in your views of the attacks, but I ask that you take a step back and not respond in escalating kind. I know... I should talk... But I did do the same with Squeak and did not (quite) sink to the same name-calling level. I only ask that you do the same and realize that I am trying to protect you from the total disruption I ended up suffering because of it (ultimately from well-intentioned moderators that were spoon-fed only a small portion of the story).

VigilancePrime (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (And best of luck on the ACS article. I believe you are in the "right" as far as the NPOV and historical fact angles go... and that is "clear"!) :-)[reply]

We are both honorable people. I can understand your attempt while utterly disputing its effect. That's the difference between respecting personal honor, as we (currently) are doing, and abusing personal honor, as Squeak has done to both of us.
I realize why you didn't tag Squeak. However, if you weren't going to tag him, you shouldn't have tagged me. Period. Even if that weren't so, you shouldn't template the regulars anyway, as you know from other conversations on your talkpage.
I deny that I have responded in kind or with escalation. I refute the attacks against me, but I make no new attacks of my own. Self-defense is only justified to repel an attack, not to punish an attacker. Squeak has gotten away with far too much for far too long, through his skill with certain admins and certain processes as well as through his otherwise stellar contributions. I see him as having a massive blind spot when it comes to his POV on this topic; He cannot see that any opinion other than his on this topic (and others) is worth discussing, much less possibly meritorious in some way.

I bear very few people in my life any ill will. You're definitely not one of them. But, be clear that I will not consider further templating to have been undertaken in good faith, considering that we've discussed it and you understand my perspective but implicitly still stand behind your doing it to me. --SSB ohio 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're good. To be clear, I was templating you and Pol, and that was the equality (at least attempted). I much better appreciate your tone above when you talk about self defense. I think a lot of the issues others took was in the "Lies! All Lies!" type of comment. I understand your use of such, but I can also see where some might see it as excessive. That's all. Glad we're in agreement, and I don't see any template issues upcoming as the situation has seemed to calm significantly. Cheers, VigilancePrime (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

I'm comfortable letting this sleeping dog lie, but we're not "good." I understand why you templated me, but it still did more harm than good, because you templated a "regular," and didn't template an egregious actor in the same conflict. I understand your reason for not templating Squeak, but, if you weren't going to template one, you shouldn't have template any. If I can come away with the feeling that you understand how I was affected by your templating me, and (at least) regret the outcome, then I'll be "good" with that. Until then, we're "ok," but we're not "good." --SSB ohio 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the templating issue. I did ive equal templates as I was focusing on you and Pol. Squeak is not involved in this issue. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Perhaps someone should have templated him, but he somehow is untouchable (his direct personal attacks on me never got a warning, let alone a template either)> I wish you no angst. I think the purpose was served, though, and your comments since have been much less open to aggressive reading (and in many instances, what you are saying and what someone else reads are entirely different). I stand by the actions and WP:DTTR is not a policy. I hate invoking that "not a policy" part, but in this case it's the best answer. Don't be too offended. I got over it (though I still have to "fix" my painfully cluttered talk page now!) and I think and hope that you have or very soon will. It's just the way of the Wiki. I'd much rather see you putting effort and time into the ACS article collaboration than fret about this matter. I find it's over, both you and Pol's issues. Moving on, we all are (or need to). VigilancePrime (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Berry article

The best place to discuss proposed changes to the Berry article is talk:Justin Berry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't discussing proposed changes to the Berry article with you. I was discussing your previous course of conduct WRT that article and related topics. Please see #Byzantine and misleading above and respond to the issues touched on by your previous comments. --SSB ohio 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Missionary position/Votes on inclusion as missionary

Please vote at Talk:Missionary position/Votes on inclusion as missionary. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck

SSB, I removed the old Invite section as it's a moot point now (figured that'd be okay). I also wanted to wish you the best of luck in your continued efforts for neutrality and reason in the witch-hunt known as an AfD. As you probably know, Squeak & Co. (which encompasses far more than just the three and their pet admin) managed to get me blocked last night after I attempted to withdraw from the debate (final assault?) and let them know as much (and restored lengthy comments that they kept blanking, and multiple people reverted back). Anyway, good luck not getting WP:STEAMrolled. If you like, drop me a line sometime or check out one of my more benign favorite articles, such as Capybara, Oozlefinch, or Moolack Beach. I'd certainly appreciate working with you more in the future! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've appreciated working with you, as well. It's sad that the attitude of closed-mindedness is driving people away. Any chance I could persuade you to reinstate your original !–vote at the AfD? I think that's where your heart lies, but I understand if you can't. If you wanted to bring back your invite text here, I'd appreciate that. Also, if I can be of any help with your block situation, please let me know. Best wishes! As a Prime, I've always found you indivisible. --SSBohio 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

surprise sex

lol I know it is funny in a sick way, I can't claim credit for it, it is a phrase from a site much disapproved of and bannned from linkage on wiki!:) Merkinsmum 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Thanks for adding your two cents; I appreciate the outside opinion.

On an unrelated note... your comment reminded me of a triathlon I was in a few years ago where my partner and I had shirts that had a reference to Herb Alpert on them. As we drove up to the race, we had the windows down with one of his songs going. About halfway through the race, as I passed a guy, he said, "Hey, were you the ones with the music? I can't get it out of my head! It's been in there this whole time!" Too funny. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's terribly cool... My partner & I would participate in a triathlon if it could be run from our sofa. As for music, I'm the guy who drives by playing the music you've never heard before. My current favorites are John Kamys' eclectic CDs and Gregg Coffin's musicals. No one's heard of them, but when I play some of their best stuff, people want to know more. Anyway, I could digress about music forever. Unless there's something that I feel has to be addressed, I've said my peace at the AfD. Same editors doing the same things, over and over; it tires a person out. Trying to keep some sense of proportion in that article has brought me close to throwing in the towel more than once. If the mob rules, then there's no hope of this project's producing an encyclopedia and I might as well take up another hobby, like doing triathlons... :-) --SSBohio 04:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, most of my athletic participation is done from the couch as well. I agree about the mess over the ACS AfD. Ugh. A large part of me wants to blank the article, lock it down, and be done with it... but I think there's some part of policy that discourages that.

Anyway. Hey, Gregg Coffin, is that goth? *ducks* Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that the Tijuana Brass is a marching band. :-) I really don't get Goth; I'm not sure how to respond to that concentrated a dose of depression. If I (or my partner) attempted a triathlon, they'd need to know where I'd prefer to be buried before registering me, and I'd face a class-action lawsuit from all those who saw me in a Speedo. When I was living in San Diego, I let a triathlete stay with me (until I found out he was a meth user). I even overlooked his being straight. But, no matter how many times I went to Tijuana, Herb Alpert was nowhere to be found. Curse my luck! Gregg Coffin writes lyrics and music for his own shows. I'm particularly in love with his show Convenience, about a young man coming home to come out to his mother & finding out his mother has something to come out about as well.

As far as ACS goes, I'm committed to honor consensus about the article. It's really not the pro-pedo piece of garbage it's been made out to be, and I'm confident it meets the criteria for inclusion. It all depends on whether people !vote the merits or !vote their prejudice. The squick factor of this topic is very high. --SSBohio 05:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't know that word until following the link, but it really describes the situation to a T. I'll keep my opinions on the matter to myself until the AfD is closed (lest I be accused of [further] bias in my attempts to keep emotions in check), but let's just say you and I are in the same boat on a lot of this.

You've convinced me to track down something by Coffin, thanks for that. By the way, a meth-using triathlete? How... exotic. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VigilancePrime MfD -- I'm concerned not with the chance that you did something improper (which I view as remote at best) but with the appearance of impropriety. In my view, when an admin and an editor are on opposite sides of an issue/controversy/etc, then, unless there's an extremely great (imminent threat to the wiki) cause, the admin should treat his admin tools as nonexistent with respect to the controversy. I think there was a slant to VP's notice, bu he was fairly even-handed in notifying interested parties without regard to their previous position on the issue. Were it me, I'd've let that sleeping dog lie; However, I don't think less of you as an admin for having done it.
Adult-child sex AfD -- It looks like there's no consensus to delete, from my (admittedly biased) perspective. Since a pro-deletion participant has effectively promised to keep trying to get it deleted no matter what, I can't see this ending well. But, I also cannot accept giving in to bullying and abuse of process either. Mark my words, this will end up going to ArbCom.
Greg Coffin -- The Convenience cast recording is available at Amazon and elsewhere. It's permanently on my iPod & I probably hear a track (or more) from it every day.
My triathlete -- I took him at his word that he was a triathlete; He had the body for it. Classically blond-haired, blue-eyed SoCal surfer boy. Exotic, especially in that he was flexible about his definition of straight. --SSBohio 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As VP noted below, I want to thank you for (unintentionally, perhaps) being a voice of good will during our exchange. I think you've helped both sides see each other's point of view more clearly. Ever thought about helping out with mediation here? I think your personality lends itself to it well. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could see that you were intending well by what you were doing, and that VP was intending well by what he was doing. Mediation might be interesting, but, as you can see above, I've had my trying times here, particularly with Squeakbox. His lying and process-bashing blows my cool with ease. --SSBohio 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1 VigilancePrime (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Returning

SSB, Now that I'm "allowed" to talk, I just wanted to thank you for your support in the matter. I will say what is right and true, if unpopular, and I will endure the self-serving blocks for it. I will tell you that your confidence in TB's intent has gone a very long way in his Good Faith assumption-ishness (see TB's talk page). If there's any fantastic insights, thoughts, or comments you might have regarding any of the issues over the last very-intense week that have been following me around, I would like to hear (well, read!) them. I appreciate your time and perspectives. (And remember, you can say anything you want anytime...) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex

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) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of impropriety

The appearance of impropriety (an ethical concern for a lay observer, as noted in the article you linked) is a problem that is not much dealt with on Wikipedia. There is a principle of transparency to most actions, as very little business is conducted off-wiki except for some ArbCom deliberations. Transparency isn't the same thing as relieving the appearance of bias or impropriety - what is key here is actual neutrality, and that is an article concern. I won't pretend to be neutral about the discussion, but I would argue that my actions were neutral in effect. Whether they were completely neutral in appearance is academic if the effect is in fact neutral, which is something I don't think is really debatable. I could make an argument after the fact that it wasn't terribly helpful, and caused somewhat more confusion than I expected - but I don't think that I could look back and point to evidence of bias in any of my actual actions.

Having said that, I think that the moving around I did actually had very little effect on the outcome or course of the debate. I'm not sure therefore that there is reason to continue to debate it, except that it is intellectually interesting to consider the issue of 'appearance of impropriety' on Wikipedia. I think that the appearance issue has gained weight mostly in areas of jurisprudence and legislation, where undisclosed biases combined with closed proceedings and highly technical topics can lead to real impact on lives and livelihoods. Since the point at Wikipedia is the content of articles, much of the legal concepts of fairness and equity have been dispensed with.

Case in point, there is a particular ArbCom case running at the moment (The IRC one, if you follow them) where one of the named parties of the dispute is a former Arbitrator and someone who fulfills other roles in the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK. The issue of appearance in this case is that former Arbitrators retain access to arbitrator-l, the ArbCom mailing list. As a result, User:David Gerard has access to all of the internal deliberations of the Arbitration Committee in a case which may (although unlikely at this point, much to the dismay of some) lead to sanctions against him. It has been discussed whether this is a serious problem (as it would be in a court of law in most of the world) but the rationale for dismissing the concern is that the point is not fairness and equity to parties - rather, it is the greater protection of the goal of the encyclopedia - which is generally served and certainly not harmed by David's subscription to the list, as his presence doesn't impugn the character or capacity of voting Arbitrators. As a neat aside - many of the ArbCom members, some clerks and a number of participants are actually lawyers.

Anyway, if you've read all this - I guess the nutshell is that I would be concerned (and agree you should be concerned) if you could point to actual impropriety rather than its appearance. I don't believe there has been any, but if you were to discover some unintended effect I would certainly admit the error. ^Avruchtalk 01:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Ssbohio! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Express Yourself!!! (Invitation to Fun)

SSBohio, I would like to invite you to come on a fun trip with me as I write, hopefully together with a few "friend Wikipedians", some future (?) WikiEssays. All in good fun, and I think it'd be a great outlet for some of the recent nervous energy and excessive typing some of us have done on recent debates. I have some formatting laid out and invite you to Be Very Bold in contributing to the articles if you feel so led. It's all meant to be in the spirit of good fun and collaboration, kinda like a mini-WikiProject or something. Check the "proposed" essay topics out here. You can also add your name to the "contributors" or even "planned contributors" (if you can't add now but plan to soon/eventually) list at the essay talk page. You'll see it's all laid out pretty simply. Yes, drop-down... just like an Advent Calendar... I know... I Hope to See You There!!! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Hey SSB!

A thought I've been harboring lately is putting up an essay within my userspace on the main source for my draft (which is Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88) to one day maybe be moved to Wikipedia, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. I'd once put this up on the German Wikipedia as an article and it held up for half a year, from May 2006 until January 2007, until someone on a personal revenge crusade removed it by means of an AfD (where votes were split 50:50 and of course most wanting to get it deleted did nothing more than point to their severe disgust, although that AfD actually lasted for 2 months before it was closed). This essay of mine was actually so influential that I found literal quotes lifted from it in a nation-wide newspaper endorsing them, that literal quotes were endorsed by a German General Medical Council, and just the same with an official brochure issued by an Austrian government department, I found my very own words in all those cases. Googling for it, I found that a number of people had saved personal backups of the article in various places on the web, and there also were several forums debating its content while linking to my article on Wikipedia.

So, I've been meaning to ask you if you'd be willing to have a look at my German essay after I'll have put it up in my userspace here on the English Wikipedia and tell me whether you think it's a good idea for me to translate it to English and for the time being leaving it as the draft of an English Wikipedia article in my userspace to one day maybe be moved to Wikipedia, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. The basic idea of this essay of mine is a Wikipedia article on an existing work (Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88), comparable to articles such as Civilization and Its Discontents and Dialectic of Enlightenment. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB

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 MfD 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:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox was nominated for speedy deletion by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When that speedy was undone, the user brought the page to MfD.
Based on your past edits and comments, you may have reason to comment or contribute to this discussion. Please do. Initial comments on this issue were left here.
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! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outing a McDonald's worker

I notice you tried to attack (as in wikipedia attack) a poor McDonalds worker, young female, lately on the Justin Berry page. Your trolling has been noted, please wait for further communication, and I would advise you not to repeat in the mean time. Pol64 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I haven't edited the Justin Berry article in over a month. What is your intent in accusing me of something that the article history disproves? Who have I attacked? Who have I trolled? Who is this McDonald's worker? What have they been outed as? So far, you've made a demonstrably false accusation about what I've been doing lately; Do you have something of substance in your comments? Please provide diffs and I'll give them due consideration. --SSBohio 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I can't do that. its been deleted. But blatant lying isn't a good idea on a site that records your every word. Pol64 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The Justin Berry article was last history deleted in August. Is that what you meant by lately? And, if it happened before the history deletion, where did you just now see it? As to your allegation of lying, I'm not. You're making an accusation against me, so it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it. Your allegation that I outed a McDonald's worker lately at the Justin Berry article is demonstrably a false one. I assume no malice in your making it, but it's just as false innocently as it would be maliciously. --SSBohio 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSB, are you confused? "on the Justin Berry page" seemed pretty clear to me, and that page isn't deleted. I was hoping to take a look and back up Pol's accusations and warn you myself... Oh well... VigilancePrime (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was history-only deleted twice, the last time in August 2007. I still don't understand what Pol is talking about. Pol hasn't told me who I'm supposed to have outed, what I'm supposed to have outed them as, or how I'm supposed to have done all this. I'm as in the dark as when we started. --SSBohio 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Pol assume that working at McDonald's is a bannable offence that people prefer to keep quiet about? That's harsh! --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pol is apparently going to be doing all her assuming somewhere else. She's been indefinitely blocked from editing. Her unfounded allegations will remain unfounded. I consider this matter resolved. --SSBohio 06:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Ssbohio. It can be disheartening to find yourself in the middle of a strange conflict like that one, however I won't let it get me down. I came here to write before I had even heard of admining, so as long as I can write, I can handle strange admin-related events. Thanks again. SGGH ^speak! 09:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now where have I heard this kind of talk before? A self-appointed gumshoe on a crusade to rid Wikipedia of "ripened" evildoers. No doubt, she even has her own sekrit "sleuthing" techniques, too! --130.127.48.188 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advent Calendars

If you have a minute sometime, and want to frustrate yourself, check out the Advent Calendar User Page I created! It's... complicated. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :-D[reply]

Great News?

have you seen this and this?

I wonder how long this will last... Do you hear that...? It's the sound of quiet and peace...!

VigilancePrime (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC) :-D[reply]

Userfy

In response to your question to me, there were only two choices, to delete or userfy. By deleting the subpage, it is implicit that the deletion admin was expressing the view that it shouldn't be kept userfied. Dreadstar † 09:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Specific discussion topics

Justin Berry

LtWinters & Heesham

Adult-child sex

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

WikiProject Furry

WP:CVU status

RFCN

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Re: John McMullen (broadcaster)

Deleting edit

Thank you

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Sourced statement on adult-child sex

It's now a deletion review

Merge consensus

Deletion claioms

Your revert

Reverting another mess edit of yours

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Alice and her harasser

Harry Potter and his homosexual teacher

"My Fellow Americans"

Same name, same sexuality: a riddle for the ages

Beat writer arouses Irish guy

Love those Texas Longhorns

Point and Counterpoint

Drudgery on offer

"My Fellow Americans" redux

This month's Wiki stars

And the Oscar goes to...

Fresh faces to brighten our pages

Leather and lace

Late breaking news

Champagne dreams and caviar kisses

hbdragon88 RfA

Hola

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

you too...

My RFA

Byzantine and misleading

Tim Richards

History deletions

Image:Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School Sign.jpg listed for deletion

Adult-child sex

Take a step back, recollect, and then continue.

Berry article

Talk:Missionary position/Votes on inclusion as missionary

Good Luck

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

surprise sex

WP:AN/I

Returning

Not Returning

Adult-child sex

Appearance of impropriety

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Express Yourself!!! (Invitation to Fun)

Hey SSB!

Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB

Outing a McDonald's worker

Advent Calendars

Great News?

Userfy