User talk:Herostratus

I will usually respond to your messages on your talk page unless otherwise requested.

Archives Memory hole Archive 1 Archive B Archive Alpha Centauri

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ribbon request

I don't know if you're in the business of making ribbons still, but I was wondering if you would be so kind as to make a ribbon for the new Socratic barnstar. --Sharkface217 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, 'tis a shame. Oh well. --Sharkface217 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, Herostratus. May 2008 bring you many successful edits, featured articles, and less disagreements! Stay safe, and watch those broken bottles on the floor.

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Minor Barnstar
		Its a minor edit, but it's majorly appreciated! Thanks! WLU (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Buggs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Buggs.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Herostratus, I've been looking over your comment for awhile now, attempting to figure out what on earth you meant. As I still don't understand what you're trying to say or why, could you please explain? Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's alright, I know that this can be a touchy issue. Hence the messages all over my talk and others', the many kilobytes of discussion, and heated feelings all over. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's no problem. I understand. No hard feelings? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you, as well. Happy editing! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Pavlina

I see that you were involved with the decision to delete Steve Pavlina in March 2007. He's ba-a-ack, and no more notable than before, as far as I can see. I don't know enough about how Wikipedia works, and wonder if an article once deleted shouldn't stay deleted? --Hordaland (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse / Mirror page and redundancy

Apologies if I did the name change incorrectly! I was trying to react to two years' worth of commentary on the Talk page, including yours. (Having read and considered everything that everyone on the Talk page said, I thought I had "consulted" all other editors! But I guess there is another way, than just "being bold", to go about name changes. So let's start:)

Here are several of your comments that I read and reacted to, and how they were reflected in the new title that you have now reverted:

A. LIST

I'm thinking it really ought to be a category, because most of the title have articles of their own. If that were not true the mini-synopses would maybe be useful. I say: turn it into a category. Herostratus 06:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think, technically, it should be named "List of..." (Um, "List of pedophilia-themed novels", for instance, although that would mean throwing out all non-novels from the article). See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Herostratus 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agreed that "List of" was the way this article should be entitled, and I implemented your suggestion.

B. "ABUSE" in the title

Hmmm well. Thinking all this over, I think a pretty good case for "pedophilia and adult-child sex" has been made, to be honest. The argument that, if you have a novel where (say) an adult and a child have a love affair and everything is hunky-dory, it'd be a bit crusading to list that under "child sexual abuse" seems reasonable. Tough call. I wouldn't be too keen on listing a book by say Timothy Leary under "drug abuse". Speaking just for myself, intellectual honesty compels me to admit that I feel the arguments for the previous title have the upper hand. So if somebody wants to move it back, I personally won't object. Herostratus 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In April, 2006, it seems you were concerned about the word "abuse" in the title. Many others, before and since, agreed with you -- since so many works on the list do not involve obvious abuse, or even (as several commentators pointed out) any clear-cut "pedophilia".

You returned to the subject that August:

This has been discussed before. My personal opinion is that 195.93.31.3 is correct, the article title should be changed to "Pedophila and adult-child sex in fiction". I hate to disagree with Will, but the other side has the stronger argument in my opinion. The argument against the change is based at least partly on the idea that authors of works don't get to decide how their works are categorized. We wouldn't change (say) "Genocide in fiction" to "Human gene pool reform in fiction", for instance. It's strong argument. I just don't think it applies here. One of the overall POV pushing that we all as editors have to guard against is attempts, through terminology or other means, to use Wikipedia to try to normalize adult-child sex, which is a common POV-pushing theme that I often run into. However, in this case, we are talking about fiction. Sorry, Will. Herostratus 06:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

C. "PEDOPHILIA" in the title

POV-pushing can go the other way, too. It has seemed to many of us that several editors have clung to the two terms in the title, over-defining them to cover much too wide a range of situations. An adult's love for a child need not be a "love affair", need not be sexual, and certainly need not be abusive

"Physical attraction" is a term that anyone can understand. Attraction to a child can be triggered by any number of aspects of the child, and can range from the highly abstract (e.g., seeing the child triggers lofty thoughts about life and death) to the nastily particular (adult wishes to abuse the child by taking advantage of its immaturity). For most of history, people have found children and adolescents attractive for the smoothness of their skin, for their odor, for their ready smiles, for their great energy, for their unguarded candor, for their (momentary) perfection of form, for how they remind us of our own childhood, for their fullness of potential, for particular precocious talent, etc. -- without anyone thinking of those attractions as "sexual." Novels before the 20th century are full of situations in which an older person takes a younger one affectionately under his (or her) wing, for any of a number of reasons.

These attractions and associations of adult with minor child have rarely been read as predatory or sexual (though some of them were clearly unhealthy for other psychological reasons, just as attempts by a parent to determine a child's future can be suffocating). Think of those novels in which an older man "adopts" a female child, raises her, and then, after she enters adolescence, forms a sexual attraction to her that leads to marriage: would we project "pedophilia" or "child sexual abuse" into even those situations? I certainly hope not!

Of course, Freud insisted that all attractions to other humans are "sexual" (and also insisted that all life energy is "sexual"). But only if you accept Freud's extreme extention of the definition of sexual (and if everything is sexual then what does the word "sexual" add to the discussion?) would you want "sexual" in the title of the article, given the range of material now on its list.

One alternative would be to restrict the list to works portraying unambiguous sexual attractions and/or sexual acts. Even then, the words "pedophilia" and "child sexual abuse" might not apply to all works on the list in clearly NPOV ways.

The Library of Congress does have several categories that fit those narrower definitions, but it is clear that Tony and other editors of the page want to include more works on the list than the Library of Congress subject headings (or other authoritative sources) would support.

The basic problem with "pedophilia" is its multiple meanings: one in psychology, another in law enforcement, and still a third (broader and looser) in common parlance. "Attraction to a child" is broad enough to be readily understood. If "pedophilia" clearly applies to a particular fiction, the brief summary can note that fact. But its applicability needs to be an unambiguous fact, not just some editor's opinion. (See long discussion of whether anyone can clearly label DEATH IN VENICE's von Aschenbach a "pedophile". As Neon white has frequently commented, Wikipedia does not allow an article to make a judgment like that when the world at large clearly has not arrived at any such consensus. To the contrary, Wikipedia demands that its articles acknowledge controversy. Putting D in V on a list that is entitled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction", when many of us cannot find pedophilia in the book, and even Tony admits that there is no child abuse, seems clearly beyond the pale.)

I hope I have sketched answers to your two questions: Why you were not consulted, and what was wrong with the previous title.

I made the title change to retain as much as possible of the content of the page without continuing to attract the charge of NPOV. In doing so, I was guided by everything on the Talk page. The following editors expressed concerns there about the previous title (the one to which you have now reverted the article), concerns that I hoped would be diminished by the new title:

Pais, Clayboy, Monotonehell, Haiduc, The Relativist, Kinda, _-zro, Strichmann, A.Z., A, Reaper X, Neon white, J.S., SocJan (me) -- and, I hope you would agree, you, yourself!

(partial list)

I do hope you will reconsider your revert, since it undoes two changes you yourself appeared to ask for: (1) recasting the article as a list, and (2) removing the NPOV word "abuse". SocJan (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the Talk page of that article (which, as you have noted, I've renamed, incorporating suggestions from you and from others). I do believe we may be on the way to resolving a rather long-running debate over that entry. SocJan (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just become aware that while the rest of us were struggling with the former PEDOPHILIA AND CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE page's criteria and title, the editor who created the page simply moved it to List of books featuring pedophilia, restoring disputed titles that had been deleted after extensive discussion. (Today I deleted the Guy Davenport titles that do not belong on the list.)

Apparently that "mirror page" was created months ago, long before anyone changed the title of the original page. What do you think of the redundancy and of dealing with title and content disputes by simply moving a page and retitling it without any links forward or backward? SocJan (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE 25 FEBRUARY 08

Herostratus: I just noticed that you have had an exchange with Neon white about the subject above. You ask what is going on. Well, I had hoped that what I wrote above, in this box, would catch you up. The only other thing is that Will Beback deleted material that he thought inappropriate on the Talk page for the main article, which you can find if you go back through its history.

I wrote this to Will at that time (quoted from his Talk page):

"Hello, Will. I accept your recent deletions on the Talk page as a legitimate way to deal with the recent situation.

But could you clarify whether your intervention is as an editor of that page, supporting a position in the discussion, or as a neutral moderator of Wikipedia discussions. You have played both roles. They are not incompatible, but some indication from you of where you stand on the page's current and future evolution would seem timely.

"As you know, a number of editors have been concerned that "pedophilia" has multiple meanings -- one in psychology, a different one in law enforcement, and a still vaguer one in general and casual usage in society -- and have thus argued that it was a poor choice for a word around which to build a Wikipedia article of that sort. It was clear that editors interested in the page could not agree on which definition to use.

"Are you comfortable with the new title and introductory paragraphs? Or should we continue to seek a better solution?

The originator of the page is clearly upset, and that's highly understandable. He has made it abundantly clear that he is wedded to the word "pedophila" and to a definition of it that is extremely broad (one that he repeated in the material you deleted).

"But Wikipedia requires its entries to acknowledge controversy and lack of unanimity where they exist, while he wants things simpler than they can be made for this subject. DEATH IN VENICE was a good test case. My position is that It can now be included, whereas it was a great stretch so long as "pedophilia" and "child sexual abuse" appeared in the article's title, since neither is clearly and unequivocally present in D in V. Do you agree? SocJan (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)"

To that, I would add only:

(1) that I remain very much dismayed that Tony would call me (and others) "pro-pedophilia" for reading certain works differently from the way he does; and

(re: "Also, Sandel has a point; what are you guys up to over there? Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"):

(2) that all exchanges between Neon white and me can be found on the Talk pages of the two articles where our edits have been disputed by Tony, and on our respective personal Talk pages. If you read them, they will make clear that I do not know Neon white, that I have not entered into any sort of conspiracy with him, and that he and I are not always in agreement. It is not fair to either of us for anyone to lump us together. Please no further references to "you guys" and what "we" are up to. Anything I am "up to" is out there for everyone to see on the Talk pages and in my edits.

I am trying very hard to be respectful of Tony's work -- while also respecting Wikipedia guidelines. I have spent considerable time reading and thinking about those guidelines. I am trying to preserve this article in a way that meets OR and NPOV criteria. I have tried to be VERY slow to make edits, proposing them first on the Talk page and waiting patiently for others to make comments. That approach has been made difficult, however, by the fact that Tony rarely responds on the Talk pages. His creation of a "fork" article last fall instead of continuing to participate in the discussion at the original page strikes me as not within usual Wikipedia standards for resolving POV and OR edit questions. The fork has created a problem that needs to be addressed.

You ask how you might help: You could help by reviewing the merge discussion and weighing in with your advice. I have proposed that the fork Tony created last fall, which has some excellent features, be merged back into the original article. Help us decide what to do and how to do it.

Thanks for caring! I believe that Tony, you, Neon white, and all of us who have worked on that page sincerely want to make Wikipedia better. SocJan (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aj weberman album.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Aj weberman album.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aj weberman dylan book cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aj weberman dylan book cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Book cover - great american parade.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Book cover - great american parade.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Tony Sandel#Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)

Are you referring to personal attacks and not assuming good faith? The original posts that sparked the warning about not assuming good faith are here [1] [2] to which he responded with another personal attack [3]

Then there is the issue of the duplicating of the page currently being discussed at the bottom of the talk page. [Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males] --neonwhite user page talk 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack is a personal attack, there is no grading of them. These attacks contained accusations of a conspiracy and slander against two editors, this is as serious as a personal attack can get. As far as i am concerned the warning was perfectly justified and warranted (policy says If it is a clear case of ongoing incivility, consider making a comment on the offender's talk page. ) and if any personal attacks occur again it will be taken to the admin noticeboard. Please note this is only the most recent episode in a long campaign of disruptuive and tenatious editing by this editor on this and related pages that began long before i was involved with the page. Serious reocurring personal attacks is incivil behaviour and deserves warnings. It was in no way an overreaction. Personal attacks are not valid points in any discussion. If you disagree with wikipedia policy on no personal attacks i suggst you take it up on that talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 06:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Certs Cool Mint Drops low res.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Certs Cool Mint Drops low res.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Certs Powerful Mints low res.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Certs Powerful Mints low res.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rind et al. (1998)

Hi - When you have a chance, would you take a look at the recent history on Rind et al. (1998) and the related talk page section? Thanks a lot. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia articles

Hi, just responding to your query on my talk page. If you re-read the interminable debates on Guy Davenport and Death in Venice as well as the discussion on the 'pedophilia... in fiction...' article you may understand why I don't respond to every post by SocJan and NeonWhite. They cannot find pedophilia in Death and Venice and clearly do not accept the many sources I have quoted as worth accepting. I created the 'List of...' articles in the expectation that the 'Pedophilia in...' series would be deleted. I accept that this wasn't the right way to do it (i.e. copying and pasting). There seems to be less need for 3rd party sourcing and references in lists on Wikipedia, so a list might be better than an article.

The key point for me is that SocJan and NeonWhite are determined to deny pedophilia in Davenport/Mann. We should question why they do this. I have not suggested that Davenport himself was a pedophile, just that he wrote a good number of works which contain pedophile fantasies. There have been fewer 3rd party sources for Davenport's work as they are not as well known as Thomas Mann's.

When SocJan refers to Library of Congress references, he does not understand how they work. It is the publisher who decides the categories, not the LoC and categories are never added retrospectively (unless the publisher decides to change it is a new edition).

The new article titles that they have created are poorly chosen and misleading. I have accepted that 'child sexual abuse' should be deleted from the titles (being superfluous) and the lists should be 'pedophilia in literature', 'pedophilia in films' etc. To talk about 'physical attraction to youths' is really misleading and reads like a pro-pedophilia agenda. If there is no consensus on the word pedophilia then articles should be renamed 'sexual attraction to children in literature' and 'sexual attraction to children in films' or 'list of films featuring sexual attraction to children'. That's what the lists are. No more, no less. I should know, I added nearly all the material. Tony (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Tony

Yet again you need to be reminded to assume good faith. The new title was chosen to be more encompassing and to reflect the criteria of the list. The old title was narrow and did not reflect the stated criteria, it was this title that was misleading and would have lead to many items being removed simply because they did not fit the title and the altered criteria to go with it. The reason that 'youth' was chosen was to allow alot of items to remain that did not involve children but adolescents. It also sidesteps the difficult or impossible tasks of drawing a line between a child and an adult. The issue of Death in Venice was quite clearly discussed on the talk page. It does not specifically mention any sexual elements and your belief that it does is a personal view and therefore original research. The subject of this work is unclear and much debated and disputed, your opinion is simply not important enough to use. --neonwhite user page talk 16:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have myself been concerned aboiut the title changes annd these comments from Tony make me more so. Oh dear. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony's comments above are very helpful. (I just wish they had been made on the Talk page for the article in question, where all interested parties could find them easily.) I have just read the Wikipedia entries on "Sexual attraction" and "Physical attractiveness". Having done so, I welcome Tony's suggestion that the term "sexual attraction (to young people)" might be a consensus-winning NPOV substitute for "pedophilia" in the title of whatever article(s) remain after the necessary pruning that faces us. If he implements that language, I will support it. And I will not object to the restoration of Davenport works to the list.

Two other title issues have been identified on the Talk page of the main article and need to be addressed.

(1) "children" can imply a focus on pre-pubertal boys and girls. But Tony's list includes works in which the attractions may be to pre-pubertal, pubertal, and/or post-pubertal youth. Would "young people" perhaps be both accurate and brief? "Young" seems to me to cover the full age range in question, and "people" allows the list to deal with attractions to boys and to girls.

(2) The correct Wikipedia form for lists, someone pointed out, is "List of ________". Which would mean that we need titles of this form:

"List of books portraying adult sexual attraction to young people"

"List of films portraying adult sexual attraction to young people".

I will support titles of this sort.

I want to maintain a positive tone here. Having made what I hope are constructive and friendly, non-contentious proposals, I cannot remain completely silent in the face of Tony's speculations (above) about the private life and motivations of an author who is recently dead (and cannot defend himself, not that he should have to), and of Wikipedia editors who raise questions that Tony cannot (or chooses not to) treat as legitimate.

Some time ago I asked Tony to define what he means by "pro-pedophile agenda". He has not done so, and yet repeats again, above, his suggestion that I have one. Thanks a lot! I should not have to, and will not, respond to this sort of ad hominem material, which Wikipedia expressly forbids.

Whatever Tony chooses to believe about other editors, I believe that our common goal as Wikipedia contributors is to provide accurate, NPOV, information.

With the proposed titles above, and re-cast as lists, Tony's work will fit Wikipedia guidelines just fine, in my opinion. (You can consider the previous sentence evidence that I have "a pro-Wikipedia guidelines" agenda. I will happily be accused of that!)

Too bad we could not have gotten to this point long ago! Willingness of all editors to continue discussion on the appropriate Talk page until true consensus is reached would have helped. As would more attention to the problems of precision in use of words. And less speculation about people's motives. As would spending just a bit of time learning Wikipedia basic rules and procedures. I've been trying to do that; I recommend it to other editors.

We are all free to visit Wikipedia entries on terms used or proposed for us in Wikipedia titles. Even brief visits to Pedophilia, Sexual attraction, and Physical attractiveness should quickly put into perspective the issues we've tried to resolve in this debate. From the start this has been (for me, at least) a question of careful, precise, and consistent (consistent with other Wikipedia articles) use of words, especially technical terms that have multiple meanings depending on context. That's my agenda. SocJan (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Children's rights

Hi Herostratus. I just got done reviewing a number of your edits related to young people, and I would be interested in your review of the new article I have created on children's rights. It appears that you have edited extensively throughout WP regarding the issue, and I would appreciate any feedback, considerations or edits you might have for the article. Thanks in advance. • Freechild'sup? 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Child pornography

Hi - I removed a photo that seemed off-topic on Child pornography, and it's been re-added. Does the photo seem appropriate to you for that article? Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

umm ok, i understand an exception to free speech in this minor case.Cholga^talK! 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC formatting

Good idea to add an RFC on the PPA article regarding the intro wording.

The RFC template is sort of confusing though. I think the question from the RFC template will show up on the Society RFC list page after the bot adds it there, but to get it to show up on the PPA talk page, it might need you to enter the text of the question right there in the talk page section. Otherwise when people see the RFC page link, they won't see the question topic when they get to the talk page.

I'm not positive about this, but I think that's how it works. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your 'message'

WP:DTTR --WebHamster 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists

Please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males#Requested_move. Tony has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006. Your input in the next few days would be appreciated. You have asked to be consulted; this is a request that you look over and comment on the direction in which we are going. SocJan (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

PPA Talk

Hero, could you clarify what you meant in this edit? I'm unclear as to whether the question you posed is strictly for those who have edited the page a lot or who have not or what. I had no idea I was a "usual suspect" there and don't think I've edited that actual article uch at all in my history on Wikipedia. Anyway, I wasn't sure if I should be offended or complimented by being referred to as a "regular" or that my position would already be known... So anyway, maybe a line on that page to clarify what is meant and who you're wanting to answer the question would be good. • VigilancePrime • • • 22:43 (UTC) 4 Mar '08

mysecurecyberspace link

It's been/being spammed across a wide array of articles by the owners of the site. - Ehheh (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

PPA

Hi --

When you have a chance, would you take a look at this PPA talk page section and recent article edits? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, please help if you can. Legitimus (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Laurentian

It's been a while since I visited the Great Lakes entry, and I missed your request for feedback on your deletion of the word Laurentian.

The word derives from the association of the lakes with the St. Lawrence watershed. It is a generally accepted designation among professionals working in academic fields that differentiates these lakes from Great Lakes elsewhere, especially (but not exclusively) in Africa. I have added the link for the International Association for Great Lakes Research, which describes itself as "a scientific organization made up of researchers studying the Laurentian Great Lakes and other large lakes of the world, as well as those with an interest in such research" ( http://www.iaglr.org/ ).

Not sure how to deal with this in the Great Lakes entry. Strictly speaking, the entry is incomplete without some reference to the word Laurentian. Perhaps the introductory paragraph needs to be edited to explain the usage and the lack of an objective basis for the term. There was a tedious and, to my mind at least, pointless discussion about whether "Great Lakes" deserved a disambiguation page some time back. A variety of contributers made the argument that since there were more hits related to the Laurentian lakes from a google search on "great lakes" it was somehow obvious what the words meant. The upshot was that the cultural biases associated with internet use should take precedence over clarity and strict usage, and "Great Lakes" remained associated with the North American version, while other usages were subordinated.

It would be useful to move the entry past this mindset and introduce Wikipedia users to the fact the the term Great Lakes evokes different responses in different places. If that's asking for too much, it would perhaps be good to let people know why they may sometimes see the word Laurentian in front of the other words. I can take a stab at it if it won't get me accused of vandalism. People do get protective about the wierdest things.

 Peter3 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the My First Book About Wikipedia. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk contribs} 09:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ppa page

Hi - when you have a chance, would take a look here and here? Have a good weekend... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

update for link that has changed

Regarding this, the link you included is no longer active, and instead appears here. I didn't want to edit your post, so informing you here instead. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar

I gave it to you for being willing to take on a radioactive topic and encourage adherence to NPOV. Perhaps my words were a bit heated, but you'll recall this was at the height of the "Great Userbox War" and things were pretty chaotic. There were those who were proposing many rather draconian solutions that seemed to be a whole lot of moral panic in retrospect. You were willing to stand up and, in the true spirit of the wiki, propose an effort to reform the articles. I think that was something Mr. Murrow stood for, accuracy in the face of heated public irrationality (the communist threat at that time). I think you have done well to maintain strict neutrality since then, in the face of even more tenacious activist editors. If you feel this is inaccurate, you can remove that barnstar. The only regret I have is that ArbCom is abandoning our principals of WP:AGF on one side of the issue. I would like to think that even PPAs could be mentored and reformed into being valued contributors, but it seems that there is no reason to be had when it is something we don't like. I really don't buy the argument that we risk disrepute for doing so, since the wikipedia-hate sites continue to slander us despite the measures in place. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free logo

Howdy, I was going through the non-free logos cat and noticed Image:Wikipedia goldenbook.jpg. The WP logo is copyrighted to teh WMF and shouldn't be used on userpages. Could you re-create the image using a free basis? MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If I could point you at this conversation Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WMF_Logos, thats a foundtion guy, an he's saying they don't approve it for outside uses. If you have a permission, then by all means, we can use it. Otherwise we'll need to work on figuring out something else. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't take it to IFD, too messy. If you can point me where to request a free version, I'll get on it. Also, I have Photoshop (but suck at it), so if you gave me base images, I could maybe make something. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the conversation at [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WMF_Logos] seems to be saying the equivalent of "its ok to break our NFCC policies as long as no on forces us to stop" I think I'll ignore this little side issue of a clear paraody and focus on bigger things. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Livin It Up

It has a trailer already and will be not a real TV show on telivision but more like Pure Pwnage on the internet

As IMBD I have account there but...I am not an official actor there sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohan326 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

...in other words, this is something made up in school one day. --Finngall ^talk 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you are right it is work on in School but we have a trailer for it a script, a cast, and just about everything else so why shouldn't I have the right to make a page for it?

My Bad

Yo bro sorry about da dean martin page. I forgot it wasnt da sandbox i'm new to da wikipedia stuff. Ima go hit up da sandbox now ight 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DA biGgEsT iTaLiAnOoO (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--Gohan326 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My Mother is a Tractor : Deletion

Hi Herostratus. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion but just wanted to add some notes for you.

• I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking Qworty's link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
• It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
• Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
• It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
• This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
• As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
• Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. Qworty obviously doesn't like POD/"Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and has deleted all other references without waiting for judgement here, so one must presume deletion a fait accompli

Given the last point I have therefore saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Good evening and good luck. —Preceding comment added by Nklar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 01 May 2008

No hard feelings

For you! --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat from Jovin Lambton

[4]. Also, more gross incivility (I still don't understand why he hasn't been on civility parole since "smell the biomass," or why "collaborating" with sockpuppets is tolerated...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

...and he has hidden the two current, active warnings he has about making legal threats with the edit summary "archive stupid discussion/disinformation": [5] -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS

Hi - regarding your question, you may have been responding to an out of date message. As you noted, that situation has since been resolved. Also, I haven't seen any edits from PS for a couple weeks so your inquiry might not get a quick reply. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

???

What "incident"? That is if I may ask. Crash Underride 00:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 7 controversy

I was reading on archive 7 of said article from someone mentioning you were posting concerns regarding the removal of this by Squeak a while ago. I have to admit, I can completely understand being concerned with that. Without a section detailing occurance in the general population, people would imply that the general population does not contain any people in the group, which is obviously a huge assumption. If he had problems with anything in the edit he could have culled it, deleting it outright was very irresponsible. Certainly not modworthy. I can't help but think such deletionism may be selectively biased. Tyciol (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the talk page. The removal has consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That removal was by Herostratus not me from what I can see but I do support its removal. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What's "The Incident"?

Someone, anyone, tell me what The incidnet is.--216.118.68.193 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wpp2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wpp2.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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Csaw.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Csaw.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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Caw logo icon.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Caw logo icon.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. Skier Dude (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Squid-b-gon.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Squid-b-gon.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. Skier Dude (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Icon eye.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Icon eye.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. Skier Dude (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Greevesicon.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Greevesicon.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. Skier Dude (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Placeholder barnstar ribbon.png

Is there any way you can get rid of the dark border around this ribbon? It stands out against the others. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas D. Brock

Did you nominate this article for deletion? Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Herostratus, please see my comment to you at User_talk:Viriditas#re_Thomas_D._Brock. --MPerel 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Sea kitten

I have nominated Sea kitten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Eclipse mints infographic.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eclipse mints infographic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Skier Dude (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ringer t-shirt.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ringer t-shirt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Skier Dude (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Evaline Deleted/Now Protected

With Steve Forrest joining Placebo, the band have recieved a lot of nobility after supporitng Placebo and going on the Taste of Chaos tour. I believe it is now time we unprotect this and set up a page for them. 32k+ views on YouTube 701,522 views on their myspace with 1,089,039 plays suggest that Evaline are no longer a nn band. Huzzad (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Mega64 episodes (season 1)

The article List of Mega64 episodes (season 1) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Merely a plot summary that fails WP:NOT#PLOT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Black Kite 09:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Mega64 episodes (season 2)

The article List of Mega64 episodes (season 2) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Merely an unsourced plot summary which fails WP:NOT#PLOT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Black Kite 10:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain why you deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp/Archive? Don't other deletion sorting projects have archives. Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Boyer (2nd nomination)

An article you commented at in a first deletion discussion is now up for deletion again, you are welcome to comment there. Ikip (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Herostratus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 937 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Dmitriy Abramenkov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Rebecca Ann King - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixt (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

There is a thread about you sharing the login credentials of your account and your unblock of yourself on ANI. Viridae^Talk 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Haven't seen a self-unblock since 2005 or so. So are you in jail or what? What did you do? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OMG lol! Good one! The Hero of This Nation (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please contact the Arbitration Committee

Herostratus, please contact the Arbitration Committee at your earliest convenience at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org or through Special:Emailuser/Arbitration Committee. Alternatively, you may also reply to the email which has been sent to you via the Special:Emailuser function. Thank you. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom motion regarding yourself

Please see [6]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Recall Criteria

I see you are in the category: Wikipedia administrators open to recall. What are your specific criteria for such a recall? If you have no specific criteria in mind, would these be agreeable to you? --StaniStani  00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Recusal

No, I don't think so. I'm recused because I criticized Viridae offsite for his poorly-reasoned, unwarned, and uncommented block. Hence, I believe it would be improper to vote on a sanction for him. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Herostratus and Viridae

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

1) Herostratus strongly admonished

For failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators, and for unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is strongly admonished.

2) Viridae admonished

For blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge, Viridae is admonished for the poor judgment exercised in this incident.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this