User talk:AerobicFox

It is approximately 6:07 PM where this user lives (Pacific Time). []

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

I try to keep talkpage discussions centralized, so if you start a discussion here I will respond here, and if I start a conversation on your page then I will have it watchlisted and will respond there.

Bienvenidos a mi página de discusión. Se puede hablar conmigo en español si se necesita ó si se prefiere.

My contribution history

I saw this comment from you after the recent Off2riorob discussion closed. I'm disappointed in Rob for making his misleading attack on me, and I'm saddened that other editors are taking it at face value. I also note that you misremembered Rob's comment in order to even further reduce the number of edits that I had made. Rob's use of cherry-picked edit counts to attempt to squelch participation by editors with whom he disagrees is distasteful, counterproductive, and corrosive to the collegial atmosphere we're trying to foster here. If he can't discuss a point of policy on its merits, then he shouldn't fall back to attacking editors.

The only way that Rob could make me look like a non-contributor was to filter out all of my other Wikipedia contributions. To refresh your memory, here's the original attack. He argues that because I've made relatively few mainspace edits in recent months, I'm somehow out of touch with the community, and that I shouldn't be allowed to block the implicitly more important editors who have racked up more mainspace edits. He didn't even have the class to offer his insult where I could respond to it, as he slipped his post into an already-closed discussion.

So, why did he choose the six-month cutoff? Because otherwise he'd have to acknowledge that I've been contributing to the project for seven years, with more than sixteen thousand edits behind me—including more than 4400 to article space. Why did he just look at article contributions? Because otherwise he'd have to acknowledge that in the preceding six months I had made roughly four hundred edits, not just thirty. A major part of my contributions of late have been to the Wikipedia Reference Desks. While edits to the Ref Desk don't represent direct changes to the encyclopedia, they help the project in a number of ways.

• By far the Ref Desk's largest and most consistent source for the answers we give is Wikipedia itself; the Ref Desk serves the valuable purpose of helping readers – new and highly experienced – to use Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is a noble and wonderful and incredible project, but no encyclopedia is worth anything if it sits on the shelf, if real people can't extract useful information from it.)
• By the same token, the Ref Desk also serves to identify deficiencies in our coverage. When someone asks a question that we can't answer by reference to Wikipedia itself, it often leads to research and expansion of our articles.
• The Ref Desk is a recruiting tool for Wikipedia. People find there way to the Ref Desk (either through the link at Wikipedia:Contact us, through other web sites, or through an internet search) and discover a community full of helpful people who can connect them with useful information. Some of those people will join the project, adding their expertise and enthusiasm.
• Even neglecting the other more direct benefits of the Ref Desk, it's probably worth doing as a public relations move. It doesn't cost very much, and it builds goodwill.

I think it's worth mentioning that the conduct for which Bugs was blocked occurred at the Reference Desk, and it seems particularly unfair that Rob felt it appropriate to gloss over my specific experience (administrative and editorial) in that part of Wikipedia.

Beyond my work at the Reference Desk, I regularly participate in discussions (both on article talk pages and on policy pages) that guide and determine how Wikipedia is built. To take one recent example, just a single day before Rob's jab at me, I had been involved in a conversation on Jimbo's talk page on how to balance our goals as a project with requests from biography subjects to suppress information in their articles. My input (and subsequent comments) required substantial thought and research. While I am reluctant to resort to argumentum ad Jimbonem, I think that Jimbo's statement that "... TenOfAllTrades has produced a classic, thoughtful, and elegant discussion of the issue." supports at least a basic claim to competence and understanding of the purposes of the project.

I was willing to let sleeping dogs lie, and had intended not to participate in the recent AN/I thread. I chose to comment here on your talk page because until now I didn't realize that there were other editors taking Rob's attacks seriously, and using those misleading statements as a basis for their opinions of other editors. I'm even more concerned that you were willing to repeat and even further misstate Rob's deceptive claims. I hope that you'll do more research before you condemn another editor in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if you have taken any offense, and hope you do not feel that I disregard your contributions. In the case of the recent AN/I I was restating Rob's comment for which another editor alluded to, and was in no way attempting to smear or besmirch your edit history, but rather was bringing up my own (admittedly somewhat vague) recollection of a comment I remember Rob posting. I wish to clarify that my repetition of Rob's comment towards you was not my attempting to weigh in on the merits of his critique of your contributions, but was to bring up an example of Rob's comments, and I hope you do not see this as any condemnation towards you.AerobicFox (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello AerobicFox! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

GAR

I noticed that you placed Shigeru Miyamoto is up for GAR and its been placed there for two weeks while you said you were gonna close it 7 days ago. So I'm just letting you know about the review in case you forgot about it. GamerPro64 18:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, that somehow did just escape my mind.AerobicFox (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi AerobicFox - a belated note of thanks for your encouraging comment on my talkpage at a time when I was in need of such - I am grateful - best wishes to you. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Belated but welcomed. ^_^ Glad to see your doing well, best wished to you too.AerobicFox (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"This is why we can't have nice things"

Could you please explain your decision to revert the 17:12, 8 November 2011 edit on H.A.A.R.P. page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.203.204 (talk)

For one thing, the link isn't working, and even going to his homepage on directly clicking on this hyperlink: High-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and localized heating doesn't bring me somewhere where I can confirm what he is even arguing. More importantly though, this source is self-published and Fran De Aquino is a non-notable loon who says he can control gravity using electromagnetic fields, believes he has quantified gravity, and has to my knowledge never been published outside of a non-fringe, unaccredited journal such as "The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology", or his other publications some of which are vanity publications that you pay them money and they will print anything.AerobicFox (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Both link and hyperlink work fine to me, on each and every browser and OS I tried; it's a 732 KB pdf file. Try here. His questionable credibility, or the fact that he's self-published, is the reason why I included the information on the Conspiracy theories section, and should not be a motive to overlook his influence on conspiracy theorists. Nick Begich is an equally self-published non-notable loon who says weird things, nevertheless he got a citation on the section. My intention was to report the existence of this essay, since I've recently noticed an outburst of speculations based on it, and not because of its reliability. 93.37.209.105 (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, apologies for the terse/sarcastic edit summary. I'll take your word for it that it is being mentioned and cited a lot by speculators, but we should find a reliable source stating as much instead of just citing the essay itself.AerobicFox (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on civility at ANI

I should have read your comment about civility related to the Pregnancy image issue at ANI. It summed up much of what I was thinking and repeated below. I've been getting the impression that "civility" based requests for blocks and bans have been increasing, which I think is a dangerous trend, and not part of traditional policy. There's a lot of people grabbing onto an adjective and running with it as evidence of incivility. If I read your comment right, I think you agree with me that that is an unhelpful trend. Either way, I hope what you wrote is noticed by others because it sums up the issue nicely. Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree in the utmost. I read your comment down below and it basically reaffirmed what I am feeling as well.AerobicFox (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Medic Barnstar
		To AerobicFox, for contributions to medical articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks this really helps my motivation. :)AerobicFox (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DSM and ICD-10

Hi AerobicFox,

You stated at the RSN that "The specific application of the theory to indicate that infanitilism is pedophilia turned inward is directly contradicted by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems which consider the two conditions to be unrelated." I've read the DSM's discussion of the paraphilias (DSM-IV-TR, pages 568-73 are the specific ranges I have photocopies of) and browsed the ICD-10's latest version in section F65, disorders of sexual preference ([1]). In neither case can I find paraphilic infantilism mentioned. The DSM mentions infantilism once on page 572 as a behaviour seen in sexual masochists ([2], the actual quote is "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism")"). The ICD-10 doesn't seem to discuss paraphilic infantilism at all (but does discuss infantilism a lot, in reference to the meaning of "phyisiological infantilism", the failure to mature or appearance of physically infantile traits in adults). As indicated in the paraphilic infantilism page, pedophilia and PI are not considered the same thing, and I have attempted to edit to make this distinction more clear [3], as well as rewording the "autoerotic pedophilia" to remove the loaded term while keeping the intent [4]. I believe it is important to make a distinction between attraction to children (pedophilia) and attraction to the idea of being a child (paraphilic infantilism) and if the distinction is not clear enough, it should be sharpened. Paraphilic infantilists initiate sexual contact with other adults, not children. I think that Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree make these distinctions, and in fact make them quite clearly, touching on the central issue of a parter versus the self. I have compared it to the difference between a homosexual (attracted to a member of the same sex) and transvestic fetishism (attracted to the idea of being the opposite sex).

My basic questions are - what parts of the DSM and ICD-10 do you see as applying to or discussing paraphilic infantilism? Where do they make the distinction that pedophilia is not paraphilic infantilism? I don't see the DSM or ICD-10 as contradicting Blanchard's theory simply because the DSM and ICD-10 don't discuss paraphilic infantilism at all, let alone making a distinction or contradicting the theory. If I am missing something, I would like to correct it, and having my mistakes pointed out makes me a better editor and the page improves. I had considered the DSM-PI issue settled and would only like to re-consider it if myself and the other editors involved made an error or missed a point.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I assumed that infantilism would be listed under miscellaneous sexual paraphilias, and did not expect to see it not mentioned at all. The distinction is still present in the bulk of sources on the pedophilia and infantilism which neither relate the two, nor treat them as similar diagnoses, but as two different pathologies entirely with their own developing diagnoses and understanding and their own associations. In this way, despite the lack of distinction by the DSM/ICD which disappointingly does not discuss the paraphilia, I still find the mainstream consensus to be against any type of relationship between the two.AerobicFox (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)