User talk:Chrislyte

January 2014

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

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

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

False claims

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

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

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

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

Reference Errors on 29 July

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

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

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

July 2014

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

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

Original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

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

Do not cite out of date reviews, such as Ley et al. It's claims were never backed up by their citations, and studies have since been published that correlate e sexual dysfunctions with brain changes and less arousal with levels of porn use.Chrislyte

August 2014

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