User talk:Eric12

Welcome!

ANY USER WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE FINESSE OF DEFINITIONS FOR PEDOPHILIA PLEASE KEEP IT ON THE TALK PAGES FOR ARTICLES DEALING WITH SUCH.

STOP COMING TO MY PROFILE PAGE, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR DEFENSE OF - OR EUPHEMISMS FOR - CHILD MOLESTERS.

Hello, Eric12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DVD+ R/W 00:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Cora, Wyoming. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your band notable? If so, please create an article about it, and then it can be linked from the Cora article in a more appropriate place — where you've put it, in the introduction, is not the right place. If it's not, please stop adding it. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brandon Teena, you may be blocked from editing. В и к и T 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question about whether to refer to Brandon Teena (or any other transgender individual) as a man or a woman is pretty well established. If you disagree, you should feel free to take up the issue at the talk page, but please don't continue to just change the article to suit your preferences. Thanks. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this edit by you is wrong, per MOS:IDENTITY and per the way you are defining pedophilia. Pedophilia is accurately defined as the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, and there are no laws against pedophilia. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. There are child sexual abuse and statutory rape laws, of course. There are Wikipedia policies and guidelines that we must follow. I suggest you read up on them; they are located at the top of your talk page. As noted above, if you continue to violate MOS:IDENTITY, you will be blocked from editing (temporarily or permanently). Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. I'm calling a pedophile a pedophile and you're saying there are no laws against it? I would suggest you do the same and make out with a 13-year old girl to test the law but that's revolting and hope that you don't and cannot fathom your defense of this. Yes, child molesters are pedophiles and those who are committing this crime are pedophiles. You're...I just don't have words for someone like you defending pedophiles on MY talk page. GTFO. Eric12 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't give you a break if you can't even be bothered to read the Pedophilia article I pointed you to. Your definition of pedophilia is wrong. Plain and simple. A postpubescent 18-year-old with a pubescent or postpubescent 13-year-old (and, yes, girls can be postpubescent at age 13) is not pedophilia at all, under any expert definition. That is a fact. And, no, there are no laws against pedophilia, which is a mental disorder. Unless you count Kansas v. Hendricks, which is about sexual offense in addition to the mental disorder, no country has any law against the mental disorder; countries have laws against the acts of sexually abusing prepubescent children or engaging in sexual activity with adolescent and/or teenage minors. Pedophilia certainly is not defined as two teenagers having gone on a date and shared a kiss either. Since you seem to define pedophilia by age of consent and age of majority, which is quite ridiculous...since both vary from state to state or country to country and it would mean that a person is a pedophile in one state or country but not in another, you'd probably consider an 18-year-old guy with a 17-year-old girlfriend to be pedophilia as well, which is also quite ridiculous...since there is no drastic mental or physical age difference between the two. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent bodies, not to bodies that have quite clearly taken on secondary sex characteristics; if sexually attracted to the latter at all, it is minor sexual attraction. And it is most of the experts in these fields stating that pedophiles have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescents and that pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not the same thing. They state that a person can be a pedophile and child sexual abuser, but a person can be one or the other as well. So take up your problems with the definitions with them. You have child sexual abuse, statutory rape and pedophilia so mixed up that I don't know what else to state to you about that, but to refer you to the Pedophilia article once more; it goes over all of this, with text supported by experts in these fields. I don't defend pedophilia or child sexual abuse; I do what I can to keep such editors, pedophiles and child sexual abusers, off Wikipedia, as many at this site know. I just can't stand misuse of medical terminology, which is what you are doing when you use the term "pedophilia" in the way that you have. You may not have words for someone like me, but I have words for someone like you. Words that I won't be sharing here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, if I had any way of knowing who you are I'd report you to the authorities for investigation. Throwing a tantrum over the clinical difference in definition about pedophilia, child abuse, etc as a defense is thoroughly disturbing and a massive red flag for criminal psychologists. Yes, PEDOPHILE. IT IS ILLEGAL TO MAKE SEXUAL CONTACT BETWEEN AN ADULT AND A 13 YEAR OLD IN EVERY ONE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Merriam Webster's, See pedophilia defined for English-language learners [such as Flyer22]: "sexual feelings or activities that involve children" http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/pedophilia

So is a 13-year old an adult or a child? So is an 18-year old an adult or a child? (Please don't cite Michael Jackson's philosophy here.)

You're a sick human being and for the last time keep your pedo filth off MY talk page. Go all NAMBLA on your own page, not mine. GTFO.Eric12 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, if I had a way of sitting you down and educating you on these topics, I would. You haven't a clue what you are talking about, as I've sufficiently explained above. Dictionary definitions are not suitable definitions for defining the mental disorder that is pedophilia, as is explained in the Pedophilia article. Also see WP:MEDRS, since those are the type of sources we generally use for medical topics. You are using the common use definition, which is silly for the reasons I've gone over. And calling me a pedophile, when I am one of the Wikipedia editors who keep pedophiles and child sexual abusers off Wikipedia, as is known, is quite comical. But whatever. Read up on the topic, in every aspect, starting with the Pedophilia article, before posting more nonsense on my talk page. In fact, cease and desist from posting any more nonsense on my talk page at all. Do it again there or here, and I will report you for gross WP:CIVIL violations. Flyer22 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went there and told YOU to stop coming to MY page and posting crap about euphemisms for pedophilia and making light of a pedophile. Something tells me you, however, will "do it again".

KEEP IT ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE WHERE IT BELONGS, DO NOT POLLUTE MY PROFILE WITH YOUR FILTH. Eric12 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You went there to make pedophilia accusations aimed at me, just like you have done on this talk page, and to assert that the medical, authoritative definition of pedophilia is crap. You are the one who is making light of what pedophilia is, for the reasons I've mentioned above. If we went by your definition, try to see that it wouldn't make any sense to state that an 18-year-old guy with a 17-year-old girlfriend is a pedophile all because he is a legal adult and the 17-year-old girl isn't. Not to mention, as I've mentioned above, the age of consent and age of majority vary in different locations. If we went by your definition, it would mean that a person is a pedophile in one state or country...but not in another state or country. This would mean that a person is considered to have the mental disorder in one state or country, but not if they go to another state or country. Suffice it to say, pedophilia is not defined that way for valid reasons. 17 and 18-year-olds are both biological adults, cannot be told apart age-wise unless one looks significantly younger than how their age typically looks physically-wise. So it is absurd to state that an 18-year-old guy is a pedophile for finding a 17-year-old girl sexually attractive. It makes no sense to state that a person has a mental disorder if they are sexually attracted to a 17-year-old, but not to an 18-year-old, as if there is some clear physical age difference between the two. In some cases, pubescent or postpubescent 13-year-old girls look 18 or very close to that age. That may have been the case with Brandon Teena and the 13-year-old girl. Whatever the case, you need to remember that "prepubescent" (including those who look prepubescent) is the main keyword when defining pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Brandon Teena was accused or convicted of pedophilia for kissing a 13-year-old girl, then that fact could be included in the article (with an appropriate citation, of course). If not, then suggesting that it is pedophilia amounts to original research, which is prima facie not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not introduce the bit about her taking advantage of a 13 year old girl while disguised as an adult man and do agree that such an activity considered reprehensible by the civilized world, but not Flyer22, should definitely be backed up. My contribution is that is flagrantly illegal (even if defended by NAMBLA boy Flyer22) and a major biographical point as the entire article deals with Teena's sexuality. Her sexuality and the violent, bigoted reaction against it is furthermore the entire cause for her fame and the sole reason she has a Wikipedia entry. Eric12 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, you don't know what you are talking about. And you most certainly are the one who introduced "the bit about her taking advantage of a 13 year old girl while disguised as an adult man." And I am female. Flyer22 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO, I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT INTRODUCE THE PART ABOUT HER GOING AFTER THE 13 YEAR OLD GIRL. IT WAS THERE WHEN I EDITED. ARE YOU THAT ILLITERATE? And you accuse me of character attacks?

I feel like I have to hide and cower and not say anything because you'll keep coming back here. I feel like I'm being raped. (And then being reported by the rapist!) YOU ARE A SICK FUCK. STAY AWAY. Please. Eric12 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rape is not something to take as lightly as to compare it to my trying to educate you about how pedophilia is medically defined and the law with respect to aspects of it. And the link is right there above showing that you added "which is considered pedophilia under Nebraska law"; that is what I meant about you adding "the bit about her taking advantage of a 13 year old girl while disguised as an adult man." That line had no such "taking advantage" implication until you added what you added to it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Eric12. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. В и к и T 17:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, not only are you over the line, but you are missing the point. We differentiate between the mental disorder, pedophilia and the criminal act of sexual abuse. The desire, and the act. We do this because medical texts and the law does. Because we are an encyclopedia, we strive for a higher degree of precision in our terms than the average newspaper. And to be sure, making personal attacks like calling Flyer a NAMBLA boy, will get you blocked. It is fine to disagree, it is not to attack others. And yes, everyone knows Flyer is a female, by the way, which is simply one more thing you are mistaken about here. I suggest you tone it back and listen, learn, and ask questions. We also use the gender distinctions that the subject themselves identify with as a rule. Their gender may be different than their physical sex, as gender is based on behavioral characteristics, not physiological or genetic characteristics. This might be new to you, but it is accepted within the medical community and the sources used herein. So stop the attacks, and go read up and learn what Flyer is talking about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is hilarious. I'm reported to the Wiki police because I don't want some sick bastard coming here to MY profile and telling me it's not pedophilia by statute technically, thus it's not pedophilia. This is as ridiculous as claiming Teena wasn't murdered because there's no crime on the books: it's actually homicide, 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree. Therefore, revise the article against the ignorant, biased people who don't know what murder is. Your argument is ridiculous, we all know what the word murder means and what the word pedophilia means. Whether the legal wordsmiths decide to prosecute using them or some four word phrase of their choosing does not change the English language.

KEEP IT ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE WHERE IT BELONGS, DO NOT POLLUTE MY PROFILE WITH YOUR FILTH. Eric12 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Wiki police, however, there are administrators. [Same thing, yet another euphemism enforcer? - Eric12] I am one. I came here trying to explain, but you deleted my comments. That is fine, as it is your talk page, but you are still continuing to attack people and that is not fine. You might take a look at the post of mine that you deleted, as it had some links and other info. Going off the deep end and calling people names, however, will get you blocked and I strongly recommend you stop that now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat for clarity: For the record, I did not introduce the bit about her taking advantage of a 13 year old girl while disguised as an adult man and do agree that such an activity considered reprehensible by the civilized world, but not Flyer22, should definitely be backed up. My contribution is that it's flagrantly illegal (even if defended by NAMBLA girl [apparently "everybody knows" ^{[citation needed]}] Flyer22) and a major biographical point as the entire article deals with Teena's sexuality. Her sexuality and the violent, bigoted reaction against it is furthermore the entire cause for her fame and the sole reason she has a Wikipedia entry. There's no reason if this information about advances on 13 year old is true (I DID NOT put it there), that it shouldn't be included as information about her sexuality and as pertinent information about a public personality. If some user continues to remove it and comes here on my profile - not the article's talk page where it belongs - and thrashes me, defends definitions of pedophilia and I'm the vandal and attacker? I get chewed out for going to this user's profile and saying stop bringing this trash on MY page?

KEEP IT ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE WHERE IT BELONGS, DO NOT POLLUTE MY PROFILE WITH YOUR FILTH. Go away. Leave me alone. For Christ's sake already, stay away from me. You win. I cave, you can call it vandalism when you're the one removing information about the illegality of sexuality between an adult and a 13 year old and pretending it's heterosexual contact. I mean, not that that would screw up the poor young girl and be considered predatory and sick or anything. Mustn't bring out the truth about those we want to protect. After all,

this IS a democratic [chortles] and revisionist encyclopedia, not some kind of place for actual facts.Eric12 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I just stated above, "you added 'which is considered pedophilia under Nebraska law'; that is what I meant about you adding 'the bit about her taking advantage of a 13 year old girl while disguised as an adult man.' That line had no such 'taking advantage' implication until you added what you added to it." I was not trying to thrash you or anything of the sort, and I wish that things had not escalated to this hostile point. I fail to see how defending the medical, authoritative definition of pedophilia is wrong or means that I am a pedophile/child sexual abuser, although there are hebephiles and ephebophiles who justify their sexual preferences/sexual actions concerning pubescents/postpubescents (underage or otherwise) by stating that they don't have the mental disorder pedophilia. But again, the way that I have described pedophilia is the way that most experts in these fields define the term. Dennis also explained that to you, as well as how we treat a person's gender identity on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to make personal attacks after having been very firmly warned to stop. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you make further personal attacks here on this talk page, your ability to edit here will also be revoked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to help you keep from getting blocked, but you wouldn't listen. You need to go cool down, review the material here, including the stuff you deleted that I wrote, and maybe tomorrow ask for an unblock, assuming you will take the time to understand why you were blocked to begin with. Again, it is fine to disagree, but if you can't take a calmer, more rationale approach to disagreements, you likely won't be unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's wise advice - I would seriously recommend reading the deleted message by Dennis and learning from it it. I'll be offline before too long and won't be back until Monday, but any other admin is, of course, welcome to consider an unblock request without any need to contact or wait for me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you are continuing your attacks here (through your refusal to listen to any explanations being given to you and your continuing leveling of grossly unjust accusations against Flyer22), I have now revoked your ability to edit this talk page too. I have also reinstated the block message and related notes, which you removed, as they will be needed by any reviewing admin. If you wish to request unblock, you will now need to do it via WP:UTRS or WP:BASC. Or if an admin wishes to reinstate your ability to edit here and request unblock in the usual manner after a sufficient time for you to have hopefully calmed down, they are free to do so. But please be warned that shouting and screaming, and refusing to even hear what's being said to you, is a sure way to be kicked off Wikipedia for good. So please, do calm down and read the messages of explanation that you have removed - they're still there in the page history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You really are completely misunderstanding what has been happening here, so I'm going to point out a few of the false allegations you have been making, in the hope you will reflect upon them and try to resume a collegial approach here...
Nobody has been defending child molestation

Nobody has been defending sex with underage children

Nobody is "making light of a pedophile"

Nobody is defending sex between an adult and a 13 year old, or suggesting it is legal

Nobody is saying anything about whether it would "screw up the poor young girl"

Let me ask you one last time to please read and understand what people are actually saying, and stop leaping to repeated accusations of things people are NOT saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think thatWP:UTRS or WP:BASC is the best option here. I don't think risking yet more disruption is a good idea, particularly since there appears to be a significant lack of clue, and complete misunderstanding of what others are saying. I would recommend against unblocking the talk page at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored Dennis's initial message above, as I don't believe that Eric12 meant to delete it and he is blocked indefinitely now anyway (not that he may not be unblocked in the future or return to editing Wikipedia regardless). If he wants it removed again, then oh well. But per WP:TALK, removal of comments shouldn't leave other comments out of context. Eric12, I'm not sure how you made it through Wikipedia all this time, since 2006, without even being aware of some of our core policies and guidelines; for example, you only recently learned to sign your user name. But I have nothing more to state to you about all of this, except that your pedophilia and murder comparisons are flawed/you are wrong because of the reasons noted above, and I hope that you read up more on the topic of pedophilia in the future (beyond dictionary definitions and popular culture sources). Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]