User talk:Chrislyte

False claims Tgeorgescu

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

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

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

See Talk:Pornography addiction/Archive 1#False claims by Chrislyte. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are claiming that the DSM5 considered pornography addiction. It did not. You have yet to cite anything saying that the DSM5 considered pornography addiction. You are the one making false claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte (talk • contribs)

When the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was being drafted, experts considered a proposed diagnostic addiction called hypersexual disorder, which also included a pornography subtype. But in the end, reviewers determined that there wasn't enough evidence to include hypersexual disorder or its subtypes in the 2013 edition.
— Kirsten Weir, Is pornography addictive?

Quoted from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/04/pornography.aspx Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's summarize the evidence:

DSM-5, pp. 797-798 uses the words "viewing pornography online", for the reader this isn't evidence of a formal evaluation process, but it is at least circumstantial evidence that the DSM-5 team has analyzed (formally or informally) viewing pornography online, and found that evidence is lacking in order to affirm it as a mental disorder;
you are still unable to quote any reliable source for your claim that the DSM-5 team did not formally analyzed it; this is a strong indication of a made up claim, since it is not published anywhere, so how would you know what you pretend to know?
Monitor on Psychology made clear that the DSM-5 team has formally analyzed the a hypersexuality subtype of pornography use, and it does not take an Einstein to realize that it includes online pornography use.

So, your claim is both false and unverifiable. That's why I asked how do you know what you claim to know, since mind reading excepted, there is no way to learn it from medicine and psychology journals. Your claim is like claiming that Woodrow Wilson was assassinated: we are confident that it did not happen and as far as Wikipedia is concerned we may verify the claim that it did not happen. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu You have yet to cite one thing that states that the DSM5 considered Pornography addiction. I want a direct quote. Instead all you can say is there is "circumstantial evidence". Your references to Woodrow Wilson are beyond bizarre.

Let's examine your so-called evidence:

1) Your article by the APA monitor refers to hypersexuality. Porn addiction is not hypersexuality. Wikipedia has an article about hypersexuality If you want to discuss hypersexuality, then do so on that article.

2) You cite the APA monitor, which is a publication for American Psychological Association. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association. See - http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx You are now confusing the American Psychological Association with the American Psychiatric Association.

I am still waiting for a citation to where the DSM5 officially consider porn addiction, and then formally rejected it. Your attempts at relabeling porn addiction "hypersexuality" is disappointing, and demonstrates that you don't really understand either porn addiction or hypersexuality. Chrislyte (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it tends to come up again and again, how do you know what you purport to know? How do you know that I have made a confusion between the two APAs? Are you a mind reader or something? Besides, the articles hypersexuality and sexual addiction have a lot of overlap. Are you telling me that excessive masturbation isn't a form of hypersexuality and that it does not involve porn? Isn't masturbation the reason why fapstronauts oppose porn? Tgeorgescu (talk)

Reference Errors on 29 July

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

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

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

July 2014

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

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

Original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the quote offered above. Just noticed that there is a contradiction between "Not a mind reader, simply a reader." and "Has it occurred to you that there is no way to prove that something *did not* occur...because it did not occur." Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

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

Tgeorgescu You make no sense. This article - Pornography addiction - contains many references that are individual studies, not reviews.

It would be great if you did not cite out of date reviews, such as Ley et al. Besides that fcat that its claims are not supported by their citations, several studies have since been published refuting Ley's unsupported claims. Cambridge university correlated erectile dysfunction with compulsive porn use. From the study:

"Compared to healthy volunteers, CSB subjects had greater subjective sexual desire or wanting to explicit cues and had greater liking scores to erotic cues, thus demonstrating a dissociation between wanting and liking. CSB subjects also had greater impairments of sexual arousal and erectile difficulties in intimate relationships but not with sexually explicit materials highlighting that the enhanced desire scores were specific to the explicit cues and not generalized heightened sexual desire."

''CSB subjects reported that as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials..... experienced diminished libido or erectile function specifically in physical relationships with women (although not in relationship to the sexually explicit material) (N = 11)..."

"CSB subjects compared to healthy volunteers had significantly more difficulty with sexual arousal and experienced more erectile difficulties in intimate sexual relationships but not to sexually explicit material."

A second MRI study by Germany's Max Planck Institute found higher hours per week/more years of porn viewing correlated with a reduction in grey matter in sections of the reward circuitry (striatum) associated with sexual arousal. In addition more porn use correlated with less brain activation and less arousal to sexual images. Said the study,

"This is in line with the hypothesis that intense exposure to pornographic stimuli results in a downregulation of the natural neural response to sexual stimuli."

Lead researcher Simone Kühn said -

"That could mean that regular consumption of pornography more or less wears out your reward system."

"We assume that subjects with a high porn consumption need increasing stimulation to receive the same amount of reward."

Ley et al is woefully out of date, and cannot support its claims with citations. I ask you again to please name the citations in ley et al that support your statements in this Wikipedia article. Chrislyte

You may want to check out the definition at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

"Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.

In Pornography addiction I cite research from Cambridge University and Max Planck Institute while you cite an outdated review who's citations rarely back the claims. Please cite original source material, rather than unsubstantiated claims from Ley et al. Chrislyte (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

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

You make no sense. This article Pornography addiction contains many references which are individual studies. Ley et al. is not a reliable source as it cannot be found in Pub Med. See this search Chrislyte (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictophilia is subject to discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Alert by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu This is what you do when you cannot provide actual sources for your claims? For example:

1) Still no citation saying the porn addiction was formally considered by DSM5

2) Calling studies published in top journals [unreliable medical source?] - while citing Ley et al, which is not even in pubmed.Chrislyte (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Effects of pornography. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you tell me what I deleted?Chrislyte (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Effects of pornography#Unreliable medical sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tgeorgescu Sorry, but the studies cited are reliable, whereas, Let et al, is not in PubMed. Chrislyte (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on the talk page, they aren't reliable medical sources in the WP:MEDRS meaning, since they are primary medical sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ley et al is not accepted by PubMed, and it misrepresents it's primary sources. For example, this article cites Ley, et al for the following:

"An academic review notes that a large, lucrative industry promises treatments for "pornography addiction"

What is the primary source to substantiate this claim by ley et al? I'll answer: There is none. On page 1, ley et al states:

"Since a large, lucrative industry has promised treatments for pornography addiction despite this poor evidence, scientific psychologists are called to declare the emperor (treatment industry) has no clothes (supporting evidence)."

However, there is no citation for the above claim. Making a claim without a citation is more than unreliable. Please cite a source that references an underlying study on the "lucrative nature" of this fabricated industry.Chrislyte (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a ban on original research in print-published, peer-reviewed journals. There was a topic about Ley et al. at WP:RSN and it was not even mentioned that it would not be WP:MEDRS compliant for that reason. Of course, it depends on which Ley et al. article you mean, since there is more than one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did my home work. Curr Sex Health Rep is indexed neither in PubMed nor in Medline. The topic about it is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 169#The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the 'Pornography Addiction' model, by Ley,Prause & Finn - should be banned. There was not much of a discussion about, just a big wall of text followed by a few comments. So, if you wish, you may start another topic about Ley en al. and its lack of indexing at WP:RSN. However, first read WP:OSE: just because a paper is unreliable it does not mean that we should accept other unreliable papers, "unreliable" does not mean here "bad research" but lack of compliance with WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

&Tgeorgescu The "wall of text" discussing Ley et al, clearly describes the misrepresentations of citations and unsubstantiated claims. There is little discussion because facts are presented that cannot be disputed. Claiming that Ley et al is reliable, while labeling studies by Cambridge University and Max Planck Institute as not reliable, places your judgement into question. Chrislyte (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your judgment is late, since I had already marked Ley et al. with {{medrs}}, since not being PubMed indexed is a red flag. Even accepting that Ley et al. is definitely unreliable, it does not mean that Wikipedia should accept other unreliable papers. I have already explained what reliable source means according to WP:MEDRS, so I am not going to repeat that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Effects of pornography, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaborlewis, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]