User talk:Rookiee

Can you please explain what your plan is for the re-arrangement of article on sex offender, child sex offenduiukjblkjblkjbkjbkjblkbting people's wording and data. Hardly anyone is citing categories, biased, NPOV, etc, etc... uiukjblkjblkjbkjbkjblkbting er, etc? -Willmcw 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's currently what I'm trying to figure out. There seems to be a HUGE convolution of terms, entries, categories, biased, NPOV, etc, etc... uiukjblkjblkjbkjbkjblkbting people's wording and data. Hardly anyone is citing references, either, which needs to change. --Rookiee 21:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... And now sex offender got reverted back and altered... I categories, biased, NPOV, etc, etc... uiukjblkjblkjbkjbkjblkbting people's wording and data. Hardly anyone is citing categories, biased, NPOV, etc, etc... uiukjblkjblkjbkjbkjblkbting people's wording and data. Hardly anyone is citing categories, biased, NPOV, etc, etc... uiukjblkjblkjbkjbkjblkbting people's wording and data. Hardly anyone is citing categories, biased, NPOV, etc, etc... uiukjblkjblkjbkjbkjblkbting people's wording and data. Hardly anyone is citing categories, biased, NPOV, etc, etc... uiukjblkjblkjbkjbkjblkbting people's wording and data. Hardly anyone is citing realized that some pages talking about different sex offenders had already been created, so I thought it would be proper to split up the pages for each type. I just created a new page for "Child Sex Offender".... which is now ALSO reverted...

I think the problem with attempting to categorization of sex offenders is it combines "psychology" with "crime", hence criminology. Maybe that's the category we should put it under. Whatcha think? --Rookiee 21:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is that you should discuss major changes on talk pages before making them, and if you are doing a major restructuring then you should have some plan in place. Yes, unless you provide some explanations, prefereably in the article talk pages, your major changes may be reverted. -Willmcw 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't originally planning on making large structural changes. It just ended up happening the more and more I found suspect entries and reverts. I figured the only way to combat that is to simply change them. So, tell me, once I put it on the discussion page, how do I ensure that the changes are followed through on?

Also, why is Talk:Child sexual abuse forwarding to Talk:Sexual abuse? --Rookiee 22:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After you've made your proposal on the talk pages, and dealt with any issues that are raised there, then you or another eitor can make the changes. Regarding the talk page redirects, that would be a vestige of various page moves. -Willmcw 22:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Wow... you have copied all of my userboxes, even presenting them in the same order and using the same wording in the customized boxes. Could you at least move them around/change some of the wording so that people don't think you're a just carbon-copy of me? I find to believe that you share every single one of my interests, including TV shows. Why not hunt around wikipedia through the userbox categories and choose some that reflect your own personality? -195.93.21.99 12:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

On behalf of Rookiee. "Pedophile trolling" is not a criterion for blocking- and where did he even troll? He was dismayed because Wikipedia was discriminating against him because he's a pedophile. He was just trying to act in good faith and contribute, but he wasn't allowed, and so he wished to protest this. That's NOT grounds for a block. --Rory096 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion here --pgk^(talk) 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the admins regarding this with no response. I've emailed Neutrality regarding this with no response.

I have yet to receive any type of official response from anyone regarding my ban.

Why have I been banned? "Pedophile trolling"? What does "Pedophile trolling" mean? What specific actions did I make to commit any kind of trolling, much less "pedophile" trolling? Did I troll pedosexuals? No. I am a pedosexual! If anything, the offense was committed against me! I have been singled out because of my sexual orientation and barred from being allowed to give my POV into Wikipedia articles because of this growing and transparent bias amongst Wikipedia's administration.

What are the specific differences between "pedophile trolling" vs. "non-pedophile trolling"? The modern definition of "pedophile" means "someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children". Merely having a sexual attraction, however subjectively offensive to the average American Joe, does not constitute an action much less an offense. "Pedophile" is a noun, not a verb. It means to posess a characteristic. Are you banning me because of a characteristic I claim to posess? If so, how is that not discriminatory? Are you assuming that because of this characteristic, I am somehow lesser of an individual, uncapable of being held to the same standard of respect as is the rest of Wikipedia's users? Are you treating me as a second-class Wikipedian? If not, why the need for the qualifier of "pedophile" before "trolling"? Could you just possibly be accusing me of "I-think-he's-a-sick-pervert trolling"?

Some classify my orientation as a "sickness" while others actively dispute the claim. Even some who are not pedosexuals actively dispute it. Some assert that pedosexuality is not a protected sexual orientation because it is listed under the DSM as a mental illness. May I remind everyone here that homosexuality once was also on the DSM as a mental illness? Do you know that pedosexuality and homosexuality were once considered synonymous? Is it then Wikipedia's official position that homosexuals are hereby disallowed from editing its pages because of their once-held position as "sick" people? Would they have been banned from Wikipedia 30 years ago for "homosexual trolling"? Why isn't there "ephebophile trolling" or "teleiophile trolling" or "audiophile trolling"? Why not "heterosexual trolling"? Why isn't there "individual who walks his dog in the morning trolling"? I'll tell you why. Because it's stupid! You don't hold these people to a different standard because you think they're normal! (Or at least somewhat more normal.) That by its very definition is discrimination!

I got news for everyone: I am pedosexual, and I am PROUD to be pedosexual. I am a childlover. I am a boylover. I am a girllover. And I got news for ya: I am a homosexual male. I am a bisexual male. I am a heterosexual male. Yep! I find dem women's attractive too! I am a human being. I have skin. I have blood. I eat pizza. I love classical music. I (usually when I'm not wasting my time on here) have a job. I have a family. I have loved ones I come home to. AND... I am DEFINATELY not going to allow any nameless admin who purports to be "NEUTRAL" to tell me otherwise because of a single aspect of my life which my society I live in considers taboo.

To prohibit someone from editing Wikipedia due to their sexual orientation is against Wikimedia's very own Non-Discrimination Policy.

Furthermore, I have not trolled a damn soul on this website.

Unblock me.

Anyone who wishes to comment to me in private can reach me through my email address on my blog, otherwise, I invite people's comments here. Thank you. --Rookiee Revolyob 10:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per above this has been discussed here, this covers your concern regarding sexual orientation. --pgk^(talk) 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion hardly demonstrates a consensus that a block was correct. — Matt Crypto 18:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again, please do not undo my admin actions, I am an admin who has reviewed his reqeusted and is denying it. --pgk^(talk) 18:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get all huffy! It is not at all clear to a number of us at this point whether this user has been blocked legitimately. This block needs further review. — Matt Crypto 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. --pgk^(talk) 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked. — Matt Crypto 08:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Rookiee Revolyob 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr.... it's still saying I'm blocked. --Rookiee Revolyob 10:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try now? NSL E _(T+C) at 10:23 UTC (2006-03-15)

Yep, it's working now. Thanks, guys. --Rookiee Revolyob 20:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Wow... you have copied all of my userboxes, even presenting them in the same order and using the same wording in the customized boxes. Could you at least move them around/change some of the wording so that people don't think we're carbon copies? I find it hard to believe that you share every single one of my interests, including TV shows. Why not hunt around wikipedia through the userbox categories and choose some that reflect your personality more? -Neural 12:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out these good userbox pages: :)

There are many different categories to look for among that lot. :-)

Thanks - I just don't want people to think we're laboratory clones... :)

[edited].......Ok, I've had a tinker with the order and changed one or two words. I also added in the name of your blog in the userbox about your blog. Wikipedia is a free country, a'course: you can change them back if you like. Have fun with all the userboxes, seek out some more, and have fun on wikipedia.

-Neural 12:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to leave you a message about that... I couldn't believe how many things you had that I ended going, "Huh.. ok.. that's me, too.. I'll just keep it."... over and over and over :) Sorry if I freaked ya out. I'm going to have to watch JAM now that you've made me aware of it. ;D --Rookiee Revolyob 19:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some additional changes on my userboxes... I had to maintain some form of subject relationships so my brain wouldn't explode. I hope it's dissimilar enough for you. ;) --Rookiee Revolyob 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAM is well worth a look if the idea of ultra-surreal (sometimes disturbing) dreamlike sketches appeals to you. I think it skirts the line between comedy-of-the-absurd and horror somewhat, but the main quality is the surrealism. Chris Morris was sifting through the strangest recesses of his imagination when he concocted this one... -Neural 03:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive personal material

You have included sensitive personal material on your user page which is unacceptable. To put it bluntly, you are playing an ass. You may remove it or accept an indefinite block. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fred Bauder 03:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A) Sensitive? What exactly on my userpage is sensitive? Could you be more specific?

B) Who the hell are you and what right do you have to make such arbitrary demands?

Let's just say, I'm your friend, but I'm into mercy killing, and you are a baby playing on the freeway. Fred Bauder 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a democracy, remember? --Rookiee Revolyob 04:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are badly mistaken. This is most emphatically not a democracy. ➥the Epopt 04:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so it's a dictatorship, yes? :) Still haven't answered my initial question. What exactly is "sensitive" on my userpage? --Rookiee Revolyob 04:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. Actually, you failed to answer either of my questions. I'm not a mind-reader, although I try. --Rookiee Revolyob 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sensitive personal material on your user page is that you apparently advocate criminal behavior. You cannot do that here. The damage you are doing to Wikipedia's public image is very great. You cannot continue to do this. Think it over. Do you want to edit here or not? Fred Bauder 12:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I only see lots of aesthetically-unappealing userboxes; I do not see anything which advocates criminal behaviour. What specifically are you referring to, Fred? — Matt Crypto 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been blanked by an anonymous editor. The offending material was in the section "My bias". Fred Bauder 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Rookiee restore his old page, I would strongly suggest he removes the links to the various pedophile blogs and websites. Wikipedia userpages should not be a tool for advocacy, and advocacy for pedophilia is something we're going to be particularly strict about (for obvious reasons). As regards Rookiee stating who he his, what his biases are and discussing what his purpose is in editing Wikipedia, I don't see any problem with those; that's what a userpage should be used for. — Matt Crypto 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy of criminal activity is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 14:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that, it's not at all clear to me that Rookiee's old user page contained anything in the way of advocacy of criminal activity. Again, maybe I missed something, but here's a less emotive analogy: on my user page, I say that "Information wants to be free". That doesn't mean that I'm advocating copyright or patent infringement (even though I do think people should be able to copy information freely, and I would personally like to be able to do things that IP laws prevent me from doing). — Matt Crypto 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between copyright violation and fucking children. Fred Bauder 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between crime and thoughtcrime. — Matt Crypto 18:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's also a difference between fucking children and advocating the legalization of fucking children. Thoughtcrime, anyone? He is, at most, guilty of a borderline infraction of WP:USER, but even that can be justified, as disclosures of personal bias are frameable as related to Wikipedia. Fred Bauder, so long as he does not break policy in his article edits your threat of indefinite block is baseless and incivil. --tjstrf 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a threat, FACT (from Chisum, John Wayne speaking). Fred Bauder 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed, I'm sure. Forgive my bluntness, but I'm asking for a policy-grounded justification here, old movie quotes are useless. --tjstrf 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think the content of this guy's user page go well beyond a disclosure of personal bias. I'm all for a statement in big bold letters on his user page that says "THIS USER IS A WANNABE PEDERAST" or something equally damning so that everyone knows just where his biases lay. The actual content, however, although practically screaming the very concept I quoted, is obviously unacceptable. While I think Fred could be a bit clearer on the motivations and reasons why it's unacceptable, I don't think he's wrong in saying that it is. Powers ^T 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited Rookiee's user page to remove A) links to off-site pro-pedophile material, and B) the section about "His dream", which is not related to Rookiee's work on Wikipedia or a disclosure of his biases. Will this suffice? — Matt Crypto 18:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those were the objectionable parts. But then, it's not up to me. Powers ^T 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need Rookiee himself to come around. Fred Bauder 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption.", WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F.

The page remains very far from satisfactory. Fred Bauder 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't disrupt a thing until you started whining about it. It's not getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. If there's one thing we should have learned from the userbox wars, it's that disruption which is artificially induced by a single editor is not a CSD, let alone a block criteria. --tjstrf 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=14 and http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11

I find it quite interesting that people assume that when I have a userbox saying, "This user wants a boyfriend" that people assume it means an underaged boy! Especially since that I've publicly stated that I've never had sex with anyone under the age of consent and that all my past boyfriends were adults! That means the entire premise of their hate-filled accusations is totally unfounded. I'm currently looking through PJ's article and I plan on making a response to it later. It's full of innaccurasies, biased terms, and I also argue that it's inciting violence and cyberstalking amongst the online community simply based that I'm attracted to minors. It's dangerous when a gang of thugs considers themselves the righteous gestapo of the 21st century. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, what do you intend to do here? We are tired of trying to explain user pages like yours to the national media. Fred Bauder 22:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the userbox is the major source of objection. More likely the passage (now removed) that started "In my dreams, I'd have a special young friend to love and help him through his boyhood..." Obviously, to you, this is an honest expression of your desires, whether acted on or not. But to the public, this is the statement of a pedophile who's being given safe haven on Wikipedia. Powers ^T 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(4x edit conflict) On the articles mentioned: someone (aka PeeJ) doesn't understand how wiki-projects work, and addressing most of their complaints would go against our principles. It would also be reactionary and prove that Wikipedia could be shoved around. Also note their horrid habit of jumping to assumptions, they had to make no less than 4 corrections and apologies in this article for what would be WP:NPA violations here.

So long as Rookie can keep himself in line article-wise, I fail to see why Perverted Justice's article columns should have much impact here. His changes that I've seen, most of which I've opposed, have been less than disruptive, and he's been quite good about following process and proposing his changes through talk. Compared to the rants that the pedophilia pages draw, I'd call him a good contributor though a definite activist. Matt's changes should have addressed the majority of your concerns, and the presence of pro-anything-and-everything advocates is to be expected on Wikipedia.

My advice to Rookie is that he tone his user page down a bit more to avoid future complaints. --tjstrf 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if Fred Bauder would outline exactly what he thinks can and cannot be included on Rookiee's page, and what he still sees as problematic. However, I don't think it would be right to demand that Rookiee refrain from identifying himself as pedophile/pro-pedophila (on pain of being indef-banned), regardless of what hysterical sites like PeeJ are saying. Using his userpage for advocacy is a separate issue, and I think the current version has got rid of most, if not all, of that. — Matt Crypto 22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing... I'm not even allowed the dignity to remove the "objectionable" material on my own after a matter of due process. I had not even been officially informed by anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation that any of my content on my userpage (which I thought was supposed to be my little "home" here) is objectionable, and it seems that everyone on here is kind of deciding my fate for me while I'm AFK.

Your page was vandalized. I just did not restore it. Please fix it to suit yourself, but leave out material about having sex with boys. Fred Bauder 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is having a dream of being able to live a normal, happy lifestyle objectionable? Would people have found my comment so objectionable if it were dealing with a more common heterosexual or homosexual orientation? I did not even mention the word "sex" in that passage, did I? Having a young boy to mentor and be a friend to in a loving, caring relationship is suddenly criminal? Or is this simply the clenching proof of the prejudice which I face elsewhere on the net?

I like boys too, but I would certainly call the police if a boy I liked fell under your influence. Pedophilia is a crime. Fred Bauder 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia is an attraction, not a crime. It does not have a magic property which renders someone unable to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law. Law-abiding pedophiles have just as much right to express their opinion on issues, and publicly announce they are pedophiles, without being harrassed, as people of other attractions do. If a 15 year old girl gets a clerical job in an office, we don't run and call the police because her boss is a "heterosexual", do we? It doesn't mean she is in iminent danger of being raped, does it? Hermitian 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage or that passage was (is) not an act of violation of Wikimedia's terms of service. It is an inflection in what I as a person hope and dream for. I am not inciting violence, hate, bigotry, or even illegal material by stating it. By removing it, it is illustrating the struggle in which I and tens.. hundreds of thousands of like-minded people are facing each and every day of their lives.

Activity which damages Wikipedia is not acceptable, whether or not there is some explicit list of all the ways you can seriously damage Wikipedia. You are doing it. Please conduct yourself so that you don't. Fred Bauder 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones making my userpage an "activist" page is yourselves. --Rookiee Revolyob 06:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the victim. Fred Bauder 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Would people have found my comment so objectionable if it were dealing with a more common heterosexual or homosexual orientation?" No, they wouldn't have. "I did not even mention the word 'sex' in that passage, did I?" Yes, you did. Well, the word "sexuality", actually, but that's close enough. Powers ^T 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some POV from a card carrying Parent Teachers Association member: As a parent and as an educator, why must I wait? I have seen enough of the skewed and slanted pedophilic propaganda to know that this is not trolls from outside. Why should I care if there is any truth to the conspiracy theories, when all the evidence is there at Wikipedia of their own self defacement for whatever motive they have- Wikipedia allows their admin pedophiles too much administrative control over content to the point where it is in my opinion, unsafe for children to be exposed to this dis-information. As a parent and a concerned citizen, for the safety of my children and others children I feel it is my duty to warn others, and I believe that these news articles, whether truth or propagandist agenda, have some foundation in people being injuried by Wikipedia and not the other way around. The absolute power of influence over peoples lives, safety, and reputations by so called "thought crimes" like libel, enticement, and propaganda being most definitively in the hands of any media or man that dares to allign itself with what we conceive as a neutral source of truth, like a trusted teacher to a student, like an adult to a child, or like an encyclopedia to the masses.

Here is the bias: The laws relating to child sexual abuse are there to protect children from random male 'situational offenders' doing that to their own kids, someone elses kids, or semantically anybody but a poor persecuted pedophile, and that laws governing Age of Consent are just religious dogma prosecuting thought crimes and persecuting pedophiles and the rights of children and pedophiles to have sexual thoughts about eachother for their obviously historically world wide accepted sexual orientation./sarcasm

When does "thought" cease to be thought and become "communication" and 'enticement"? Thoughts are no longer just thoughts when they are typed out to be read online, or on paper when spoken out loud to a child, or even in imagery, drawings and photos. Wikipedia readers, some of whom may be children, are not reading people's minds- these are communications not just thoughts. These articles and User Talk pages are held to the higher standard that applys to communications under the laws of the State of Florida and federal law with regard to Title 18 (see U.S.C. 2242b)

If an Wikipedo-admin wants to tell my 12 year old daughter in California to come meet him in Utah for sex, that he thinks it is ok for men to fuck little girls as long as its done lovingly, and he tells her to read about this lovely "child love" theory in Wikipedia and to go see other "girls" extolling the virtues of fellatio with men in GirlChat and links to it from his User Talk page, then he has broken the law in all 50 states as well as federal statute on "solicitation of a minor for sex".

Under child sexual abuse Wikipedia had a subtopic on Age of consent and simple or informed consent. Someone wanted to add this fact to the section "At this time, there is overwhelming consensus in the US that it should be illegal for minors to have sex, as all 50 states in the US have an Age of Consent Law", a simple statement of fact easily linked and referenced, sounds like it might apply to some of this content correct? Rookiee and other Wikipedo admins wouldn't allow the references to stay- not for a week not for ten minutes- not very encyclopedic, IMO.

The laws vary widely. All make illegal sex between young children and adults, but not all criminalize sex between minors, and many are graduated, and do not criminalize sex unless the age difference is more than a certain number of years. Thus your statement that the existence of such laws proves a majority want sex to be illegal for minors is not factual. Hermitian 04:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rookiee, although not alone, is one of the worst offenders of the pro-pedophile POV content within any Wikipedia articles, period. He represents a deviant societal view that is non-factual, dangerous and unwelcome in polite company, especially where children may be present. He is leading a charge to have his deviance and advocacy of criminal behavior viewed with sympathy and equality with the rights of children, the very victims of his 'would be' crime.

The wolves in sheeps clothing are exposed.

Should parents wait to see why content remains unsafe for children for years on Wikipedia before they decide to block their children from exposure to the source? Nope.

If Wikipedia wishes to be a resource for school age children,

Perhaps you have Wikipedia confused with Disney-Pedia. :) Hermitian 04:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then those who use Wikipedia to advocate "child sexual abuse" as a civil rights issue and to encourage this to be accepted as a world view should be banned. The influence of their bias against the best interests of children is both obvious and subtle, but appears glaringly to those who are actually concerned parents and educators of children. It comes down to whom you are willing to alienate, parents and teachers of children or admitted pedophiles? Your choice.

I've always said if pedophilia didn't exist, parents and unionized public school teachers would have invented it, because it is the tactical nuclear weapon in their arguments that kids shouldn't have any civil rights. Hermitian 04:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but User:69.76.224.95 just claimed Rookiee was an admin. Which he isn't. If he were an admin, he probably wouldn't be taking this sort of random flak from people, or at least not other Wikipedians. Of course, it would be all the more reason for our oh-so-neutral Perverted Justice people to hate him and us, but whatever.

Frankly, in my view Child Sexual Abuse is a horrible crime, but Pedophilia is just another damn fetish, and they have as much a right to a balanced article as anyone else. If you want your kids to be "safe online", you really shouldn't be letting them online unsupervised in the first place. Wikipedia's about as tame as the internet ever gets. Forget pedophilia, have you read our articles on BDSM yet? --tjstrf 06:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image removed from your user page

Hello, Rookiee. I've removed Image:BLogo.jpg from your user page, as it is a copyrighted, unlicensed image that is being used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. This image has not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The designer of the BL logo released it for any use by anyone in any context as long it is not BL-negative. As such, characterizing it as a "non-free" image to which fair use applies is incorrect. Having a BLogo on your user page is legally no different than having a small Israeli flag on your user page, or any other public image one might use to indicate a special interest. Hermitian 22:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A restriction that prohibits negative uses is un-free for Wikipedia purposes. This has been gone over time and again and is a settled matter. Such images can only be used in a Fair Use context. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be true of articles, which must be perpetually free and modifiable, use of the BLogo on Rookiee's user page, for the express purpose for which it was designed, is certainly not the use of a restricted image under "Fair Use", but rather a use for which the designer has given explicit permission. Hermitian 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Wikipedia is to be free for anyone to use for any purpose. This applies to user pages as well as articles; they are also part of Wikipedia. Moreover, there is even less justification for using non-free images on user pages than in articles. Hence it is Wikipedia policy to disallow all images on user pages that are not in the public domain or available under a free license. ("Used with permission" is not valid on Wikipedia; if an image is not in the public domain, and it has not been released under a free license, then it is considered to be a copyrighted, unlicensed image which can only be used under a claim of fair use.) Please remember that Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, and Wikipedia user pages are not personal Web pages. —Bkell (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not clearly harassment?

How is the vandalism currently going on here any different from what Stephen Colbert tried to pull awhile back? Perverted Justice for political reasons has begun an attack on Mr. Revolyob solely on the basis of his sexual orientation. This is what they do and since Mr. Revolyob is suffering from now. How is this any different than neo-nazis or Ku Klux Klan members harassing a wikipedia member by reason of their colour or nationality? Or complaining that a Jewish wikipedia editor had links to the Anti-Defamation League? While Mr. Revolyob should probably have documented his permission to use the images on his User Page, I fail to see how this other random and unsubstantiated edits being made here are anything other than outright harassment by Perverted Justice!

Or is this a case of everyone at Wiki being equal, just some others being slightly more equal? I seem to recall this isn't the first time sexual orientation was used to go outside the established proceedures with regard to this person.

24.80.170.125 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)I*Love*Green*Olives, Defending the Paederotic (Also being slammed in these recent attacks by Perverted Justice)[reply]

- Perhaps it's simply a matter of someone with such distorted views of the world editing things in a likewise distorted manner. Maybe that's it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mytreasurz (talk • contribs) .

If we are going to ban views that are more than a specified number of standard deviations away from the center, in either direction, Perverted-Justice is a far larger target for being expunged than Rookiee is. I really get tired of organizations which try to silence their opponents instead of debating them, and try to incite violence against their opponents, and try to incite public pressure against companies that don't discriminate against their opponents. Also, isn't it getting a bit tiresome to hear these people claim that any view to the left of center constitutes "advocating and promoting" criminal activity? If I opppose the death penalty for littering, I'm not promoting littering, I'm opposing unreasonable penalties for littering, which are not the same as those for comparable non-littering crimes. Doesn't make me a litter-o-phile. Hermitian 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you comparing littering to fucking kids? Powers ^T 22:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of. Hermitian 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked... again....

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rookiee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All I did was add a link to my homepage...

Decline reason:

decline reason Wikipedia is not for these purposes Doc 09:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Page deleted and user blocked

I deleted the user's page and blocked the user. WP:NOT is clear: Wikipedia is not a free web host for home pages and advocacy pages. Advocacy on user pages is tolerated at best.

Obviously, User:Rookiee engages in advocacy for the so-called "boylover" cause. His signature, Rookie Revolyob (mirror image of "Boylover"), and his user page, evidently show this.

Despite several warnings and reminders of Wikipedia's policies, the user has consistently kept his signature and user page. This has to stop. David.Monniaux 09:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]