This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Rather than making dozens of edits to your own posts that only change one space, letter or word, try using the "Show preview" button before hitting the "Save page" button. It keeps the history from getting bogged down with minor tweaks that could be done before you submit your post. Pairadox ( talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that showing may work better than telling. And, that is why I was excited to see your project. If an authentic and academic article on Adult Child sex can be created, it will have much better chance of standing against the arguments. I have salvaged much of the older versions of the article, and put together with your wonderful work here. Take a look. Adult Child sex is not just a legal/moral issue, nor it is necessarily a psychological/sexual abnormality. It has history, culture and biology to explain, and more. Already the stuff put together looks formidable. With time it can only get better. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is a just a reminder that you have previously been warned on your past talk page, User_talk:Tlatosmd, by User:Will Beback, about personal attacks. I just thought I would remind you that you have been previously warned about this in case you had forgotten. I wish you a happy time and longevity for your time editing wikipedia! Merkinsmum 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That was because I'd said on my own talkpage to somebody else agreeing with me that I wished SqueakBox deserves a warning from an admin for his behavior. Looks like some people intend to keep those interacting with SqueakBox on a very short leash while he prefers to mess around on topics where he admits he has zero education or reads any scientific literature in, flaming everybody who doesn't agree with his uneducated guesses. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

+1, T. Don't forget his long history of personal attacks and name-calling. Hate to let those be forgotten (as admins apparently do). I can provide a series of links if you need sometime for some of them. Best of luck on the ACS article. Squeak and his posse have a singular focus on it, and that dangerous mentality only has one outcome, which will be deletion. But I wish you luck in the fight nonetheless and hope that you do ultimately "win". VigilancePrime ( talk) 10:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Please don't make comments like this. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and comes off as insulting to the editor you were responding to. I understand that the debate is running hot, but remarks like this don't help things any. Take a break, edit elsewhere for a while if you'd like, and focus on the issue of whether the article is appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Tijuana Brass ( talk) 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's me who constantly feels insulted because some people seem to think they can counter erudition and a plethora of peer-reviewed scientific sources with their personal moral convictions and musings on mythological monsters without ever feeling obliged to bring any hard data or reliable sources themselves, not to mention the current witch-hunt on Wikisposure related to the poll, and flaming behavior in that poll obviously related to Wikisposure. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but it doesn't justify inappropriate comments either way. I'm not saying that you haven't been the target of attacks by another editor(s), I'm just asking you to please not join in with the attacking. It doesn't help your arguments any, after all. Tijuana Brass ( talk) 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, SMD. You should make comments like this and like this instead. Those don't even warrant warnings or templates! Just a friendly note to help alleviate any future issues you might have with being blocked or something for being attacked incessantly. I wish you the best. VigilancePrime ( talk) 00:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

I agree. People with the popular opinion are allowed to flame, bully, troll, and intimidate all they want, while all I just did was try to remind people civilly of a fact of fundamental failing they should be very ashamed of especially in regard they obviously see their very failing itself as a form of supremacy and moral highground. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. On a related note, you may find interest in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What Were They Thinking?. VigilancePrime ( talk) 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented briefly on the mythology comments page, and slightly less briefly on the LGBT peer review page. Aleta (Sing) 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, due to rising tensions surrounding the ACS article and its current AfD, and because of disregard for proper Wikipedia procedure and policies by a number of regular editors and admins, you have decided to withdraw either permanently or temporarily from editing associated with this article. VigilancePrime and Pairadox have chosen to take a similar course of action. This saddens me, because contributions by upstanding Wikipedians such as yourselves are very helpful in the improvement process of controversial articles such as this. Your assistance will be greatly missed, if you choose to leave or hold back on editing the ACS article. Considering prior repeated attempts by select editors to ignore and violate Wikipedia policies and to do whatever is possible to destroy this piece, your civil, well-balanced, and rational editing will definitely be needed, no matter the outcome of the AfD. Although I realize that it is difficult to contribute when so many violations and incivilities are taking place, I urge you to return to this article as soon as you can. I will personally be happy to see you return, and I'm sure the article will be the better for it as well. Best regards, ~ Homologeo ( talk) 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention to permanently leave the article alone. I just said I won't mess with the article itself as long as this newest AfD is going on and limit myself to its talkpage instead, though I must admit that the atmosphere is certainly turning increasingly hostile and anti-intellectual with so many good editors bowing out mostly because of the madness going on over at Wikisposure. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw your blatant canvassing or face the consequences of your attempt to sway a DRV vote through canvas. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_23. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." ¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. ^{Avruch talk} 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC) (Its in the history...)

Dear Anonymous, even though you don't seem to be sure enough of this to reveal your nick, I wonder why quite a lot of Wikipedia rules and guidelines only seem to be valid for one side in debates? -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop canvasing NOW or you will be blocked. Viridae ^Talk 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I had long been done by then. Furthermore, as the article for canvassing clearly states, it's only canvassing if it bothers formerly uninvolved editors. I regard this as another one of SqueakBox's moves requiring admin intervention against him. Let's also not forget the far more effective and numerous forum-shopping effect of activities taking place at Wikisposure. This censorship of simple notifications to involved editors is really ridiculous and only indicates how much some people are afraid of a few people throwing in their opinions. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 03:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of canvassing is incorrect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking Viridae ^Talk 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

and it wasn't me who initially posted to AN/I or reverted your canvassing, nor have I engaged in said activity. How is my pointing out your canvassing a blockable offence. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, let's just say for now that my former encounters with you for months make me doubt a whole lot that you're trying to assume good faith on anybody trying to reason with you. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, you have now publically said that you'd "wager your right to edit" that I must be a sock puppet of a banned user. Is this official? I hereby ask you to abstain from editing Wikipedia any longer. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPTUM: The warning for and revert of my canvassing actions by admin User:Viridae has been referred to as "a little unusual" and "actually not recommended per the policy page" by admin User:Avruch at 04:12, 23. January, here. A number of editors "harassed" by my canvassing, or other admins, have obviously restored my "canvassing" posts that had been reverted by User:Viridae. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 09:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You've already upset a lot of people up above by what many people see as canvassing. Now, you're trying to get SqueakBox to leave - in my opinion, that's harassment and a banable offence (note the word ban, not block). If you continue as you have been, you will be blocked from editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already said that I assert your behavior to be vandalizing, and now you're trying to threat and intimidate me. I'm only reminding Squeak of his very own word. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not, but I hope you adhere to the warning above. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Third, how civil is it of you to threat me for civilly rebutting a severe, close to flaming accusation against me? Direct your energies against Squeak, not those that are trying to reason with him. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I ponder reporting you for threatening to ban me simply because I was civilly asking somebody if he was serious about something he has said. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You were harassing another editor. I should point out, I would have only blocked you - I merely pointed out that harassment is a banable offence, I personally haven't got the power to ban you on my own accord. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think quoting an editor and asking if it was a serious statement is a FAR cry from harrassment. The threat to BAN an editor, on the other hand, most certainly is in this context. VigilancePrime ( talk) 06:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks VP! :) I don't know where I'd be without support like yours, probably Squeak would have gotten me banned long ago for questioning his behavior. *shudder* -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving TlatoSMD's methods aside (which in this case, however well-provoked, I disagree with), taking him at his word, I see that SqueakBox did wager his right to edit on his assertion that Tlato is a sock of a banned user. I used to defend Squeak; Once he unmasked himself on my talk page, my tolerance for him ended. The honorable thing for him to do would be to have Tlato checkusered and, if Tlato isn't the sock of a banned user, make good on his wager. -- SSB ohio 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I have reported this on the ANI, not calling for any measures but just wanting an opinion. I hope I won't be called upon canvassing for telling you. I hope the fact that years ago I created another still working account at User:Tlatosmd won't make people think I'd be a sock of that one. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 06:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I fail to find any notification of the AN/I thread on wiki, has someone been sending emails? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You can find the thread I meant here. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 05:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what I was talking about. The exact quote I want to know about is "I appreciate the notice about the ANI. I made comments there as well." from VigilancePrime down below, please enlighten me about this on-wiki notification. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess he means the fact that I mentioned that thread here. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:DG - Doppleganger Accounts for the issue of having two MATCHING accounts. That's not a sock. Anyway, it may be good for you to explicitly indicate on the lower-case userpage that it is a doppleganger of the (linking) uppercase-userpage account. That's all there is about that. It's perfectly acceptable. As for Squeak abiding by his pledge, that'll be the day (but a good one...) :-P I appreciate the notice about the ANI. I made comments there as well. VigilancePrime ( talk) 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still worrying me whatever Squeak could come up with even in the case of an accidental doppelganger, but thanks for the heads up. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, I am a storyteller by nature. Sometimes I exaggerate. I have been known to tell a story that I later found out to be slightly different than the way I tell it. Most of the time, the exaggeration and "literary license" is obvious in the telling. I tell my significant other that "A good story is more about the story than about the facts!" I mean that in (mostly) jest. Squeak takes to the most literal extreme! (I mean that in a little bit of jest, but yes, very little.) Anyway, you should be good. It's just another form of abuse, harrassment, stalking, POV-pushing (or SPOV-pushing?), and more by Squeak. We expect no less anymore, eh? VigilancePrime ( talk) 07:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations is the page to combine your old names and solve that annoying thing. MBisanz ^talk 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced. I just went there as I have a similar issue as my early edits where as Squiquifox ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that page is for people who want to change their names not for people who already have. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments here you may want to be considerably more careful in the future expressing your opinions. At the same time, you should investigate the possibility of branching out into other areas of the encylopedia where you can find an interest. Friendly warning, because the possible interpretations of your edit history and some comments could lead to a serious problem. ^{Avruch talk} 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want another editor's opinion, I say there was nothing wrong with the comment Avruch referenced above. Please don't feel pressured by what others may think, because, as long as you observe NPOV and remain your civil self, there's no reason to worry about editing even a controversial article such as "Adult-child sex." ~ Homologeo ( talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no reason to worry about editing a controversial article or articles and that there is was not my implication. ^{Avruch talk} 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean some people suspect me of being an SPA? Here's an incomplete list of articles and talk pages not directly related to our controversial topic I've contributed to under any of my two accounts roughly within only the last 6 months:

Final Solution, The Holocaust, Nazi occultism, Michael Naumann, Scholasticism, Donald Duck pocket books, Erich Mielke, Eva Braun, Adolf Hitler, Velvia, Kodachrome, Proto-Indo-European religion, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Repressed memory, An American Tail, Right-wing Authoritarianism, The Last of the Clan McDuck, Don Rosa, John Hopkins (writer), German nuclear energy project, Melvin J. Lasky, Katharina Rutschky, Schtonk!, Ulrich Mühe, Kurgan hypothesis, Treaty of Versailles, Fiat justitia ruat caelum, Sodomy, The Beatles, UK Singles Chart records, Sovetskoye Shampanskoye, Back to the Future timeline, Nordic theory, New Order (political system), Land of Confusion, Paul McCartney, The Star Diaries, Homosexuality and Norse paganism, Aesir-Asura correspondence, Syncretism, Witch (etymology), Æsir, The Rutles, Donald Duck, Ingrown nail, Nail disease, With The Beatles, The Beatles' influence on popular culture, Love (The Beatles album), The Beatles (TV series), The Beatles (cartoon series), Music video, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Valdemar Poulsen, VOX (TV channel), Aguirre, the Wrath of God, People's Century, Der Spiegel, Duck, Buchenwald concentration camp, Bible, Introducing Kafka, The Jacket

And then there's also the article Níð which I've started and that's 99% my own work in its current form. Decide for yourself if it's related to our topic or not.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that a number of experienced editors which are neither blocked nor sock puppets have said they appreciate my contributions to our controversial topic greatly, and that they wish me to keep contributing to it. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 06:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment is uncivil, please be more careful in the future. Dreadstar † 09:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue had been addressed on the talkpage. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 09:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If D's referring to the "if she'd take it seriously" part, it's perfectly civil as a true observation and a true statement. Why is it right about now so many people are taking things so poorly? I mean, considering some of the absurdities that had gone on recently against many of us (you and I included), now it's as if when you make any factual statement or any statement of observation, it's immediately uncivil. "That didn't seem to make sense" - OH NO! HOW UNCIVIL TO SAY!!! What a load of the following word, starting with c and ending with a three-letter style of music has been removed due to wimpy incivility accusers VigilancePrime ( talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :-D

I agree. You report and complain about most audacious incivility in a neutral way, and you're instantly flamed as if it would be your own incivility, and the original incivilities are glossed over for months. It's our fate for contributing on unpopular topics no matter how neutral, and if our contributions on the topic itself are not outright uncivil content-wise, we must be flamed. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 13:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, seriously, civility is really important but I don't think your comments in either of the two diffs people have brought up are incivil. And one of them was directed halfway at me, so I think I'm qualified to speak on that. Mango juice ^talk 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, please stop commenting on the contributors, and repeating the same accusations over and over that the process has been "bludgeoned" [1] [2] [3] [4]. Dreadstar † 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the process was not bludgeoned? -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 23:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Logical fallacy, you made the claim so you have to provide the evidence not the person who is refuting it. They only need to provide evidence to refute yours, should it be needed. Viridae ^Talk 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was neither the first to say so, and I'm far from the only one. Third, it's a bit hard to compile all hard evidence now that it has been deleted. Let me suffice that Squeak, Pol, and Jack could not even be stopped in their furor and frenzy to purge the well-sourced article by several page protections made by admins, official admin warnings put up exactly against any further editing of the article, and even edit-warred and flamed one or two more admins that were trying to protect the admin-endorsed version. And let's not forget the 15-20 polls for delete/merge/redirect within the few weeks the article was up that Squeak was instrumental in. This article was not steamrollered, it was bulldozered and ran over with tanks. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're wondering, I do take it very seriously. Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Keilana. Quoting even just from what admins had to say about your closure and the reasons provided: "big mistake", "irresponsibility", "incapacity", "quite exiguous understanding of deletion criteria", "you shouldn't close any more AfDs until a thorough grasp of policy is demonstrated", "very lazy decision", "just hiding the fact that you don't have a reason", "can't ignore their own POV". Let me say that I don't really oppose any of those assertions. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 02:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, most of those were from one admin, but everyone's entitled to their opinion, so... Thank you for at least being civil about your disagreeing with me. I must ask, is there anything else I've done that you have a problem with? This really seems to be implied in your comments but you haven't said anything outright. Is there something specific? If there is, let me know. Thanks, Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 02:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my civility, I try. And don't be afraid, you haven't forgotten about some instance where we've met before, my only issue with you is the recent AfD. As is indicated by the close end result of roughly 60-40, this AfD was not only very heated and controversial, it hence ended with anything but a consensus, especially regarding that those were two solid blocks that were unable to agree on anything with each other (which is what consensus is about, finding a common ground, a basic minimum that everybody can agree with, which would be closer to 90-10 closure at least, if this would be about steamrolling figures at all) or even just co-operate with each other, and the fact that all delete votes were either per-above partisans or didn't make it to come up with any sound arguments, which is a fact not only I point out but also many other editors and admins.

Given all those reasons, you shouldn't be surprised at all to find your decision to be highly controversial, not because some people feel strongly about content one way or another (as you'll see many people that find the general content matter very distasteful, and even many of those that originally voted delete are now voting to overturn your decision because they find it absolutely inconsistent with the AfD's result) but because your decision obviously neither considered much of the points raised and addressed in the AfD, nor was de facto compatible with any Wikipedia guideline or policy at all as the AfD gave no solid or even just plausible reasons for such.

According to the whole AfD and the current Review, it shows that the whole often-chanted accusation of a "POV fork" was a very subjective matter in the eye of the beholder as none of those saying so could cite one snippet from the article or one reason that made the article any "POV fork" even though they have been repeatedly requested to do so. Clinging to the CSA label is unencyclopedic as that term is purely interpretive and largely prescriptive, while ACS is exclusively descriptive and neutral. As somebody said, we don't need to write "Hitler was an evil man", his actions speak for themselves, and harm due to ACS will not suddenly disappear due to applying a neutral label to the cause of said harm. Anybody suspecting otherwise ought to really check up on themselves why they feel threatened by a lack of loaded language. The world will not suddenly drown in illegal rape if we'll stop using hateful unjustifiable words, instead it's gonna make us more calm and level-headed.

I also repeat, what kind of a "POV fork" is it if the article it's supposed to be merged into or that it's supposed to be identical to could easily be incorporated as a sub-section into the so-called "POV fork" wouldn't it be for obvious issues of overall length of article? -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not at all surprised that it was controversial, I was prepared for that when I started watching it. I do stand by my decision, and appreciate your continued civility and constructive criticism. Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say that even though I severely disagree with your decision, I appreciate your language and civility so far. The AfD wouldn't have become half as heated if all people voting for delete had been as tactful while they instead were all drowning in a tone of aggressive self-righteousness and moral supremacy. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, civility is paramount to resolving such issues in a proper and timely manner. Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to access your contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TlatoSMD. Skinnyweed 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have not much of an idea idea how this technical level of Wikipedia works either. Another user has PMed me a few hours ago, asking me to create an account, I just did, and now I find that you've posted a msg in my already existing User talk 9 days ago even though WP has just claimed that I have no such thing as an account. I'm really lost. I'm glad I know how to sign my posts. -- TlatoSMD 11:24, 25 June 2006 (CEST)

Your old account was User_talk:Tlatosmd. JayW 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(There was a welcome template here but on January 25th 2008, it started messing up the page layout as suddenly the whole content of this talkpage was inside this welcome box.)