User talk:Biaothanatoi

Last warning. If you re-add the unsourced slander again, you will be blocked from editing, whether you use this ID or your anonymous ID. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoah. What are you talking about? Everything stated in the changes to the article was sourced to a peer-reviewed, academic journal article. There is nothing in the article that constitutes slander. And my posting under an 'anonymous' ID is purely because I hadn't bothered to register here before. I look forward to your explanation.
 * You are deleting perfectly valid content (especially repeatedly deleting a link to the West Memphis 3. You are stating that this information is from a journal but don't supply links to Web information which verifies that this journal said what you said it said, or at least page numbers to an off-net source.  If you want to add the information without deleting information that's already there, and supply links or page numbers, then it would be more acceptable.  Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Zoe, this last paragraph requesting clarification from Biaothanatoi is much more productive than delivering ultimatums. Please consider taking the more reasonable path first in future requests for clarification/revision in edits, as threatening to block someone from editing is very close to assuming bad faith. Telling users why their edits do not conform to proper sourcing or style, and how said edits can be improved ensures that future edits made by this user will conform better to Wikipedia standards.


 * Or to put it more succinctly, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.--Rosicrucian 01:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zoe, the West Memphis 3 does NOT relate to SRA - it relates to Satanic ritual murder, which is another thing altogether. SRA relates to long-term sadistic torture and sexual abuse. Simply throwing in every case that relates to Satanism into SRA is counterproductive and clouds an already complex issue.


 * Academic journal articles are rarely available online. If you'd like more comprehensive footnoting, you should have said so, but instead, you referring to my changes as 'unsourced slander', and went on to threaten me. Take your bullying elsewhere. Biaothanatoi 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're being reverted by more editors than just myself. Maybe you could try discussing your edits on the article's Talk page? Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

A very belated welcome
Looks like you could have used a more friendly welcome to Wikipedia :), so...

Hello, Biaothanatoi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Personal attacks and POV pushing
About your comments on Talk:Satanic ritual abuse, Wikipedia has some policies you should be aware of. First up, WP:NPA policy says you should not make personal attacks on other editors. Basically all of your comments on that talk page have been simply insults to other editors. If you keep it up, you will be blocked. Second, as has already been pointed out to you, we follow very strictly rules on WP:NPOV policy, which means articles cannot be used to push the personal beliefs and political agendas of editors. All of your comments have made it clear that you wish to use that article to push your rather wild and unsupported views on the topic. This is not a blog for people to talk about their beliefs, this is an encyclopedia, and as such articles must follow the factually proven and solidly cited information from numerous reliable sources and not just whatever fringe theory and religiously biased unreliable nonsense people cook up. See specifically the sections in the NPOV policy about undue weight and the scientific/scholarly view. DreamGuy 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dreamguy, personal attacks on me are evident throughout the talk page, and I was returning them in kind. Characterising the bulk of my posts as "insults" is facetious, as even the briefest purveiw of my additions makes clear. I posted dozens of successful prosecutions for the crime and justified my point of view with references to several dozen peer-reviewed journal articles and studies, whilst the article under discussion relied on such dubious sources as 'religioustolerance.org'. It is somewhat ironic for you to come to my user page and talk about "solidly cited" information when I've been blocked for two years from publishing on Wikipedia the many academic studies of ritual abuse. You never bothered to engage with that information in good faith, so you can stop the self-righteous posing.


 * When it comes to issues around child sexual abuse, Wikipedia presents a false consensus about "moral panics", "hysteria" and "false memories" that is not evident in the scientific literature on the same subjects. Then again, members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and accused ritual abuse perpetrators like Michael Aquino, have recently been found by Wikipedia editors to be vigorously deleting information from Wikipedia that reflects poorly on them. I guess that's one of the many pitfalls of an open-source encyclopedia. It wouldn't be such a problem if undergraduate sceptics like yourself got off your arses and went to the library to do some actual reading, rather then being drawn to Google-accessible articles like moths to a flame.


 * It'll be interesting to see what happens to your little dominion over the Satanic Ritual Abuse article when the self-confessed satanic cult that spent five years raping kids and making child porn at Hosanna church in Louisana gets prosecuted in 2008. Two of the nine members spontaneously confessed so it's going to be hard to ignore that one, but after the last few yeras, I have faith that you can find a way to keep you head in the sand. --Biaothanatoi 06:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And just in case you are interested, here's a few more successful prosecutions for ritual abuse. --Biaothanatoi 06:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil you guys. Vandalfighter101 06:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys just stop ok? this is pointless, all you guys are doing is beating around the bush...just give up...call a truce...and be on your way.Vandalfighter101 06:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth reviewing the content of the SRA article and considering the criticisms that have been levelled at it by several commentators? Ritual child sexual abuse is associated with the most severe forms of child maltreatment across a range of studies and the selective and scornful tone of the current SRA article does harm to the many survivors of this form of abuse. --Biaothanatoi 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea but do you really need to spend precious hours defending what you know is right? If you think your right then do it! Dont worry about what others think. Vandalfighter101 07:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Notorious Dishonesty
Stay strong. Wikipedia is notorious for its conformity to the immoral times and unquestioning subservience to pedophilia-defenders, etc., so don't be discouraged if your efforts are not recognized and dishonestly opposed by vice-addicts and their apologists in the present Kali Yuga (dark age)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 03:53, 15 August, 2007 (UTC)

Hey mate
Hi—I've read your profile and am impressed with your credentials in the area of child sexual abuse. I've also been impressed with your edits in general at Satanic ritual abuse. Please see my comment HERE as it was directed at you more than anyone. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a big thanks
I've put a comparatively tiny amount of energy into trying to improve WP's rather absurd treatment of, well pretty much anything related to Child Abuse, and I am just so grateful for what you are doing here. I got too tired personally, but I want you to know that your determined, ridiculously professional attempt to walk others through what you are doing is *awesome* and more importantly, that reading it tonight on the SRA talk page made me laugh out loud many times. It is one of the more absurd situations I have ever encountered when you are simply trying to represent real info in a neutral way, using oh I don't know -- *REFERENCES* and some random WP editor starts accusing you of wildly violating policy and being unreliable, threatens to ban you, etc. Anyways...thanks again. Good luck. West world 13:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. False Memory Syndrome has proven to be suprisingly tenacious online, even if it's so much junk theory offline. Plus, seems like a lot of WP editors associate SRA with fundamentalist Christianity, and I guess they think I'm a religious nut with an agenda.
 * We'll see how the page ends up. It's bad for my blood pressure, but at least some of the outright falsehoods are gone. --Biaothanatoi 05:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. In case you were not aware: DreamGuy had disciplinary action taken against him today by WP. West world 05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. I'm glad it wasn't just me. Thanks for the heads-up! --Biaothanatoi 06:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

hey -- tried to email you but you dont have a confirmed address. i want to send you something related to the RMT page, unless you have chosen not to share your email by choice. thanks.West world 06:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - it's biaothanatio at yahoo.com. --Biaothanatoi 06:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Your email has bounced back twice?West world 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff!
I was expecting this edit to piss me off based on the edit summary, but it's actually a great improvement! I love it when people make my prose better, thanks! WLU 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't know how useful it is to quote Scalia's passing reference to the Jordan case in a summary on an unrelated matter fifteen years later, but what the hey. --Biaothanatoi 05:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please watch your tone & limit accusations
Eleland, you've made wide-ranging criticisms of recent changes without offering any specific examples so that we can actually improve the article. Instead, you've used these criticisms to cast aspersions on me, my motivations, my beliefs and my trustworthiness as an editor. For all your efforts in attacking me (including tracking down two-year-old posts from elsewhere), you've yet to actually contribute constructively to the development of this article. It seems that you have more of an interest in attacking other editors then you do in participating in the core work of Wikipedia.

These types of comments are false, but I won't refute them. Rather I will refer you to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I'm not going to communicate with you directly after this warning, and I'd ask that you not communicate with me directly, either. That includes on article talk, noticeboards, or wherever. If you seriously dispute my conduct, RfC or mediation are wide open to you. But this drumbeat of hostility has got to end, one way or the other. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would like the hostility to end, then you'll need to stop engaging with other editors in such a hostile fashion. At the moment, it seems that you are unable to accept that any editors who disagree with your POV on SRA are acting in good faith. You've gone to considerable effort to characterise me, and other editors, as conspiracy theorists and nutters - and not just on the SRA page, but on the RfCsoc and fringe theories noticeboard - whilst your actual contributions to the SRA page have been minimal. Why are you so interested in attacking us, and so disinterested in improving the article? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for cooperation

 * Thanks for the other half! Much appreciated.  I think I'm taking a break from SRA for a bit just 'cause it's getting a lot of bad traffic.  No fun in editing when there's so much disagreement.  WLU (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Tell me about it. --Biaothanatoi 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute
Hey, thanks for chiming in. I originally posted to try to get advise and for some reason they decided to open it up as a debate. :( Since we're pretty much doing informal mediation now and showing zero signs of progress, I'm guessing that arbitration is next.  Also of note, there are still a very large number of mental health professionals that don't buy the DID diagnosis, probably more psychiatrists than psychologists and social workers.  None the less, there is definitely not a consensus amongst that community at this time, so be careful on that one. :)  One study showed some 30-ish% of psychiatrists agreeing, without reservation with the diagnosis being in the DSM-IV. However, this is no excuse for crapping up the article with a bunch of "but watch out! you might get misled!" rhetoric in every other paragraph. There is already a fine article devoted to the topic of the DID controversy and proper mention of the lack of consensus along with a link to the controversy is plenty for the scope of a document on a medical or psychiatric condition.

I'm going to go to the library of a really nice research hospital near me this weekend and see if I can find any formals studies that attempt to do what I started on, examining the experience and credentials of mental health professionals and comparing that to their opinions on DID. I also want to get the full text on a few of the studies that we have linked in the DID article (I love digital cameras!). Thanks for all of your help and your work. We definitely need more people like you in this world!

Daniel Santos (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to check out a survey of a representative sample of healthcare workers in relation to their opinions on DID if there's a recent one around, but I don't think it's a big sticking point. The research findings on the construct validity of DID are very good, whether most/some/all psychs have read them or not. I'm not a huge fan of discrete psychiatric diagnoses in relation to trauma and identity (they can be somewhat artificial assemblages) but the diagnosis of DID is very useful for people with a history of extreme trauma, and it assists them in accessing efficacious care and treatment.
 * It's interesting that the Wikipedia articles on the three central straw men in the rhetoric of the FMSF - Dissociative Identity Disorder, Satanic Ritual Abuse and Recovered Memory Therapy - are closely protected by Dreamguy and othes who seem deeply influenced by their position. They are defending the crappy content of these articles so robustly because, I think, these terms are part of a larger set of beliefs promulgated by the FMSF - namely, that you can't trust women and children who disclose sexual abuse, or the professionals that assist them to do so.
 * Every editor who contests the content of these three articles gets accused of being NPOV, biased, a zealot and so on. Dreamguy has been doing it for years, and it's frustrating for those of us who want to actually write something decent on these topics - particularly since the evidence base on DID and other topics has shifted so dramatically over the last ten years, but you wouldn't know by reading the DID or RMT article. I only got some changes through the SRA after two years of an edit war after Dreamguy lost interest.
 * Maybe you and I could get some admin assistance in relation to Dreamguy's conduct? It's consistently hostile and pejorative, and he rarely actually contributes to the articles he sits on. --Biaothanatoi 01:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I hadn't even looked at the other three articles you've referred to yet. So it looks like the next recommended step is to write up a WP:RFC/USER, I would love to do this together so we have two sets of eyes on it.  I still have to study the procedures and recommendations.


 * In the mean time, I'm working out a few kinks in the new DID article. WLU stripped most of it down pretty bare.  This is actually a good thing because it's going to be a lot less work to just build from the ground up.  He would like to be really strict on sourcing (see his posting on the talk page).  But I think that addressing Dreamguy the right way will be the answer to correcting all of the articles that he has been using for his propaganda.  Once we deal with Dreamguy, I expect others to fill the gap, so we should be ready to deal with a string of editors with similiar behavior, I just hope there's not many of them.  I can deal with somebody who just doesn't believe that DID exists.  But when they go out on a limb like Dreamguy, blech!  hehe


 * Also, I'm not going to be able to make it to Southwest Medical Center this weekend, but I might stop by another university that's closer. Southwest Medical Center is a really good research hospital that has hosted a lot of really good studies on bipolar among others, so they've earned my respect. Daniel Santos (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RMT
Hi, just from your talk page I think that you are a thrill seeking kind of editor - SRA and RMT !!! I can only suggest that you try Serbophobia if you get feeling jaded. Seriously though - the actions of editors on RMT (and probably SRA) would almost certainly have them banned or blocked if they tried that sort of stuff on a "normal" article. It looks to me that you need an experienced hard-headed NPOV editor with administrator contacts. User:MastCell has done a great job of preventing me from adding any complexity to an article continually citing "undue weight" and "not WP:RS". Suggeswt you contact him. Will see if I can find an admin who was reasonable and very helpful. SmithBlue (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

December 2007
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Specifically, this edit. Your libel of referring to individuals and organizations as being associated with "the pro-paedophile movement" is getting out of hand. I won't block you, but I'll bring it up on one of the appropriate noticeboards if you don't retract and stop. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubin, the links between those organisations have been in the public domain since the mid-1990s and they constitute verifiable historical information that are clearly relevant to the assessment of credibility.
 * I am not to blame for pointing out that an organisations associations reflect poorly on that organisation. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on your comments about Cesar's comments :)
WLU gave me a little lecture about escalating tensions (on the Pictures? topic), so let me just respond here with, "well said." Daniel Santos (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the edit history and had a laugh. Cesar Tort's edits are all a bit bizarre - popping in, slagging off two months of careful changes, leaving, then popping by again to criticise us for not owning/posting satanic child porn. It's hard to know how to respond appropriately. Of course, as long as he is a "sceptic", his strange contributions escape censure from all the other me-too editors.
 * He also says he is "friends" with Colin Ross and then misquotes Ross' book and misrepresents Ross' position on SRA. Lots of claims of "insider knowledge" as a "child advocate" but no concrete demonstration that I can see. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Claims and insider knowledge are absolute bullshit and completely, utterly irrelevant for any page; such claims should be ignored completely. Adding insider knowledge would probably violate WP:COI.  Don't respond, keep cool, listen to Rubin.  So long as people edit slowly and don't escalate the tension, the sources will win out and the page should be able to demonstrate all reliably sourced points of view.  The acrimony is preventing consensus and will probably end up in the page being blocked.  If someone else keeps escalating, but you don't, they'll be blocked.  If you escalate too, both of you will be blocked, and you will become an opinion rather than an editor.  If you want to make progress on the page, apologize to any admin willing to work with other editors on the page, explain your concerns, and ask if there is a reasonable way for them to be worked into the page.  I've not worked with Rubin, but I'm sure he's willing to listen (particularly with a sincere apology - you have to mean it and you have to listen to what he says.  Part of wikipedia is swallowing what you don't like if it's got a source).  Admins get to be admins by being good at what they do.  WLU (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know Ross. But I had in mind the difference between his first published texts on SRA and the book he published with Elizabeth Loftus. Clearly, Ross has become more skeptical (though not skeptical enough). The fact that I omitted to quote my sources doesn't make my comment on Ross irrelevant. Cesar Tort 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I own the book written by Ross, by a byline from Loftus (she is not a co-author). I don't get the impression you've ever read it. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Still with us?
I see you haven't edited for a week in a half. I believe we're both in favour of moving the SRA dispute into formal mediation, but this can't happen until you're active again on Wikipedia. Please do let me know when you're able to proceed. Thanks. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I just felt like wishing you a happy new year - despite any "(insert word here)" wars you might get associated with by people of whom I am sceptic in the future. --Gwyndon (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I took a much needed holiday from all this. Let's see how it pans out in 2008. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD
Note that your article for deletion nomination is very long, and doesn't seem to have a rationale besides I don't like it, possibly POV fork and the creator is not WP:AGF, none of which really works per WP:AFD - any reader is going to have to interpret your nomination and thoroughly read the article. There are also better venues you could have raised this in first, such as WP:AN/OR. I'm not sure what kind of reception it will get. You may want to read WP:AFD more carefully and review past debates for a more standard presentation. WLU (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Navigating the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia policy is a full-time job. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to know your policy.  Very little on wikipedia gets deleted on a whim and based on WP:N, the page stands a very good chance of being kept.  You aren't doing yourself any favours by posting a long intro with no real reference to policy.  WLU (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be banned for pulling the same move that Cesar is getting away with. If you have some suggestions about the correct way to frame the submission, I'd appreciate it. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest bringing it up on a noticeboard for comment before trying to AFD it. And if you are still going to AFD it, just read the page closely and edit with multiple browser windows open.  There's a step-by-step guide but it does require a close read.  I still have to follow the guide step by step when I AFD after 18 months and nearly 20 000 edits - it's complicated.  If you really want to engage in it, you must become familiar with policy (and I would suggest the guidelines as well).  Right now the AFD is languishing because it's not properly listed.  You can't just AFD it however you feel like it should be AFD-ed, you have to follow the policy.  The only reason that will get the page deleted are found in WP:DEL, with notability WP:CFORK and WP:NOT being the only ones that apply (though my opinion is that it clears all of these on a cursory review).
 * Also, I think this might be a bit more complicated than a simple deletion discussion; I don't like the journal of psychohistory or Lloyd DeMause as a reference for a variety of reasons, but if they classify the Inca sacrifices as ritualized abuse, then there's a very strong argument that the page does deserve to exist. There's lots of stuff on wikipedia that I don't like, but if there's tenuous reliable sources and community support, the page stays.  It's one of the realities of wikipedia.  WLU (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit on SRA page
Your edit messed up the reference section. Wanted to let you know, since I believe I am unable to fix it, due to the terms of my probation. abuse t (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

False Memory Syndrome Foundation
Hi there! I noticed on the FMSF talk page that you have contributed to the article. I just wanted to let you know that I nominated it for deletion and I would love to hear your opinion on the deletion page. Thanks!! /-\ urelius ♠ &#124;) ecimus  What'sup, dog? 03:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)