Hello, DanB DanD/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - GilliamJF02:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry. I fixed it. Somehow, you had made a re-direct, as did someone else, so they looped to each other's re-directs. I managed to go back to the original version and tidied it up. Michael05:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I think you covered it pretty well, though I disagree with the prioritizing. It seems to me that uses which are exclusive should take precedence over uses which are secondary synonyms for more accepted terms. Thus its academic use is not "third." Also you forgot the use of "pederasty" as a synonym for anal sex with either men or women, from which the Italians derived the amusing "pederastia su donne", as well as the positive use which might have been employed by Wilde, Gide and the like. But there is a limit to what can be done in a couple of lines. Regards, Haiduc01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice you have tagged a couple of articles for speedy deletion as "non-notable, advertising". This is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the specific tags such as {{db-bio}} when marking articles for speedy deletion. Thanks, Gwernol04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you review the paraphilia subsection of sexual orientation I am confident that you will see why your revert justification is nonsensical. It states only that gender-preference orthogonality is untrue of pedophilia, not that its consideration as an orientation is inappropriate.
Actually no, I it was somebody else who initially deleted the article. I just noticed the article's creation on Vandal Fighter, and deleted it again. - Mike Rosoft20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in this New York Times article [1].
In the pedophiles’ world view, not all sexual abuse is abuse. There is widespread condemnation and hatred of adults who engage in forcible rape of children. But otherwise, acts of molestation are often celebrated as demonstrations of love.
In essence, the groups deem potentially injurious acts and beliefs harmless. That is accomplished in part by denying that a victim is injured, condemning critics and appealing to higher loyalties — in this case, an ostensible struggle for the sexual freedom of children. Pedophiles see themselves as part of a social movement to gain acceptance of their attractions. The effort has a number of tenets: that pedophiles are beneficial to minors, that children are psychologically capable of consenting and that therapists manipulate the young into believing they are harmed by such encounters.
Hi Dan, just to clarify: sexual penetration of a person aged 13-15 in Michigan is third degree CSC, not fourth, and there is no exception for a person close in age or even the same age. Fourth degree CSC involves only non-penetrative sexual touching. St. Jimmy03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thanks for reverting Fiction article title etc. Can you do the film one too, I don't know how to edit a title. Tony08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Tony[reply]
Hi. You just click the "Move" tag and it prompts you for the new title. It automatically creates a redirect page from the old title. DanB†DanD18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing with me that the Examples bit you just removed was POV. The guy who put it in doesn't appear to see this, and you missed my lengthy talk page sermon on it. I'm hoping this disagreement won't escalate further now. --84.71.118.19822:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was frivolous. You were blanking the entire section with no discussion. At least now, after the "accusation", I have a dialog open with you on the Child pornography talk page. Further discussion should go there. Qwasty03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --TeaDrinker03:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize I was skating close to 3RR. But what do I do when material is plainly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but the author keeps reinserting it? Jumping to mediation seems silly for such a cut-and-dried case. DanB†DanD03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do is send it over to WP:AN/3RR which I have already done. Don't worry too much if the article is not ideal for the moment, it will be fixed. If we didn't give up at some point and let an admin deal with it, we'd all be here all night... --TeaDrinker04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, I am happy to discuss anything you like almost anywhere you like, but please leave the notice board as a notice board for current, ongoing items. Your response to a six month old debate yesterday, and your personal aside to me just now on the notice board are blocking may attempts to let interested people know that there is an ongoing dispute at the Lion page. As for meddling in political matters, you are probably right, I need to stick to academic material. Regards, Haiduc12:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the same thing is happening at the CP article as when you first got involved - complete with accusations of "vandalism." Is there a next step? DanB†DanD20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boywiki... ye gods. What the heck are they putting in the water these days... :/ Anyway this is for you:
The Original Barnstar
Awarded to to DanB DanD for countering vandalism, rolling back the tides of bias and ignorance, and general all-round good work, and in some of the most difficult subjects, at that. Herostratus03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take upon myself the responsibility for any misunderstanding. Cut to the chase: are you for or against titling the article "Adult-minor erotic relations in fiction"? Haiduc01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that title has problems of its own--"minor" is a legal term that will be foreign to a lot of the material, and "erotic" is a mischaracterization of many of the stories of abuse. That article's title has been a bone of contention for ages, but no one has yet come up with a solution everyone likes. I'm inclined to defer to Tony on the whole, as he's the one who done the work of putting it together.
Let's see what Tony has to say. Just because something is not erotic to you or me does not mean that it is not erotic to the agent, else why would he do it? Can something be sexual and yet not be erotic? Haiduc03:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan this entire article is a collection of weasel-worded opinions. There are no clear definitions here, no reference texts, and no text sources for the concept itself. Please be fairminded when you revert content.
