User talk:Corax/archive

Welcome
I just wanted to take a moment to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. If you have been around for a while, but not contributing, then welcome to contributing. Your contributions to articles will always be appreciated.

Since one of your first articles was one that falls within the realm of a Project I manage, I thought I would alert you to it. It is called the United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project. Your contributions to Roe v. Wade are helpful in the development of the Project and I thank you for them. If you get a chance, check out the project page at the Wikilink above and think about helping out with the Project.

Thanks again and welcome to Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is knowledge. Knowlegde is power.

Skyler 04:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I see you talking to GBWRespect, and you are doing a wonderful job of sticking to the matter at hand, POV, not debating child sexuality with him. You have an excellent attitude and I welcome you here and I very much hope you will stay. Please contact me if you have any trouble. --ShaunMacPherson 10:11, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nambla
Thanks for setting the record straight in the NAMBLA article and very clearly defending your position. Get-back-world-respect clearly has a bias in this area, but usually he listens to arguments when they are made in a rational and calm manner. BTW, it helps keep track of the discussion if you sign your edits on the talk pages by using tildes (see How_to_edit_a_page). Paranoid 21:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you paranoid, GBWR is very POV on this issue by arguing things not having to do with the issue at hand - the NPOV of the article. Excellent work on the article Corax, I am observing the  situation and will submit some wording changes also.  As well, I think some of GBWR's comments towards you crossed the line, words like 'twisted' are not generally tollerated.  --ShaunMacPherson 10:11, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rind, et al.
Hi. Thank you for your comments regarding my transplanting of a section from the Childlove Movement article to the Rind, et al. article. I apologize for not being more thorough in ensuring that there was not an overlap of data. I did not see that there was, as the article I dropped in was somewhat different from what is in the Critics section of the existing document. At the same time, I am not an expert in the debate about this study. I simply took on good faith what another editor mistakenly put into an article where it does not belong and put it where it seemed more appropriate.

Perhaps, rather than simply reverting the edit, you might have taken a look to see if there was anything substantive there that could be kept? Or at the very least, visit Childlove movement since I clearly stated that was where it had come from, to shed your expert opinion on the information about this study that people editing that article are trying to pass of as objective content.

I would appreciate your comments on this. All the best, --Zanthalon, 04:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am preparing to revise and extend the content of the Rind article. What I reverted out will be reincorporated and presented in balance with the rebuttals of Rind, et al.  Regards Corax 05:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Campdavid.jpg
I notice that you have listed this as a PD image. I have looked through the NARA (National Archives) online gallery and it doesn't seem to come from there. Why do you think this is public domain photo rather than a press photo? Regards, Thuresson 10:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Asking again...
You've been active on the talk page since I asked this question there, so for the sake of clarity I will ask it again here on your talk page: Why did you delete my comment on the NAMBLA talk page? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 12:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Which comment? Corax 17:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked back and noticed what had happened. At the time I was using the lynx text browser under unix console, and was preparing to make an edit beneath yours.  Somehow that line of text was deleted when I cleared out and reinstated the current version.  I apologize.  Regards, Corax 19:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk page
Thank you so much for the nice note you left on my talk page, and the Barnstar, for which I'm very appreciative, but not sure I am deserving. Nevertheless, I am grateful. I have tried hard to be neutral with the NAMBLA article, though I am sure you can probably guess that I don't particularly care for the group itself (have had some personal experience with a member -- or rather, an ex-boyfriend did). Anyway, so it's been particularly difficult for me to take a broader view -- still, even articles you personally disagree with deserve to strive for NPOV. So thank you again and my regards &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it is a strange twist of irony that you would take a more objective approach to authoring an article on NAMBLA than an Australian gay man would. Heh. But the point is that you have been extremely objective, always insisting on sources and making reasonable judgment calls. For that reason, combined with the nature of the article, you are more than deserving of the Barnstar.

As an aside, I am not nor nor have I ever been a member of NAMBLA (like you, I wasn't even alive at the time the group formed). I am an "advocate" only insomuch as I have a low tolerance for people making blatant misrepresentations of what the group does and believes -- which I guess counts as an advocate in Adam's book.

I am sorry that your ex-boyfriend had a negative experience, but you have to remember most members of a group like that are probably the most radical and asshole-ish. The group represents a set of ideals more than it does their particular subsection of the gay coummunity as a whole. Corax 19:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no, I totally agree. In my ex-bf's case, it had much less to do with the man being gay and much more with him looking for some fucked up kid to take advantage of. If it had been NAMGLA it would've been no less objectionable to me. Actually, I am queer myself so I definitely don't paint all gay people with the same brush. Things seem to have calmed down quite a bit. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 00:32, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

changing article titles
There's a right way and a wrong way to change article titles. The right way is to use the "Move this page" link. The wrong way is to cut and paste. Please don't make any further edits until we can get it fixed. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:44, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory
Is caught in an edit war on a question of structure. I have created a discussion section here: Talk:Democratic_peace_theory. Please comment, and if any of its other former editors would be interested, do let them know. Septentrionalis 28 June 2005 23:49 (UTC)

There is a RfC on Ultramarine []. I commented at some length on his behavior on DPT and cited your comments on his PoV. Septentrionalis 00:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * DPT has been drastically shortened, and so improved, by a new user; do have a look. But I have had to file an RfAr against Ultramarine. Septentrionalis 17:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You may wish to have the look soon; Ultramarine has a bad habit of starting edit wars and then asking for page protection with "his" version showing. Septentrionalis 23:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Notification to user from "70.182.219.158"
Any further attempts at vandalism will be reported to an administrator, and you will be blocked from further participation on Wikipedia.

regarding evidence
Just to inform you, citing diffs as evidence should only be done with one pair of brackets, not two, since they are external links (although they are really not, but in terms of diff citation, it is as such). This makes it neater. -- Natalinasmpf 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding NAMBLA
I assume this was directed at User:PSYact who wrote this comment and not at me? &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  17:03, Dec. 30, 2005


 * You are correct. Corax 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, technically "attraction to teenagers" is not pedophilia, but rather "ephebophilia", but that word has significantly less currency. In today's world, "Pedophilia" is most commonly used to refer to any attraction to anybody below the age of consent. I'm not implying that NAMBLA condones the molestation of 5-year-olds, because I don't know this to be true. But rather, NAMBLA is considered "pedophile" by the currently accepted definition of "pedophile". I agree that this usage of the word is bogus. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  22:57, Jan. 7, 2006

Corax, you wanted an article that discussed the difference between homosexual and gay. Men who have sex with men touches on the concept and this article from the American Journal of Public Health does, too. If you want to do a little more reading, your best bets are going to be researching the phenomenon of men "on the down-low," or straight-identified (usually African American) men in relationships with women who have sex with other men. Few if any publications classify these men as gay or even bi, but they are clearly engaging in homosexual acts. Dave 01:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Teens?
You said "NAMBLA...seeks to end the oppression of relationships between teenage males and adult men". The article says the want to repeal all age-of-consent laws. So where does the "teens" come from? They're NAMBLA, not NAMTLA. I guess a pedophile is going to feel more comfortable in an assoc. which advocates "Man/Boy Love", than in the Republican party. I'd guess that the percentage of pedophiles in NAMBLA would be rather higher than that in the GOP. Camillus (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * At the time (1970s) and place (meetings of Boston's gay community) NAMBLA was formed, "boy" did not mean toddler or prepubescent kid, it meant a teenager. The original intent of the organization was to end the oppression of what they saw as consensual relationships between men and teenage boys.  To accomplish this, they advocated eliminating AOC laws.  They did not, however, at any time assert that prepubescent kids could consent to sex.  And they did not claim that sex with prepubescent children would not still be prosecutable under rape laws, even if they weren't still prosecutable under regressive AOC laws.  Corax 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if the terminology has changed, maybe they should change their name, which is a clear magnet for pedophiles.

If all AOC laws were abolished, how could anyone be charged with having sex with a minor? Wouldn't this mean that pedophilia was in fact, legalised? Therefore, advocating repeal of all AOC laws = advocating pedophilia. Camillus (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The same way we charge men who rape women. Or charge men who have sex with profoundly retarded women.  The case would presumably be adjudicated on the basis of the young person's opinion of the relationship, in addition to how informed he is about the consequences of the relationship.  Under this standard (which is used, by the way, in cases involving individuals whose mental health is called into question, whether by illness, old age, or retardation), prepubescent would almost certainly not be able to consent.  And neither would people be denied certain rights based solely on the issue of age.  I believe that was NAMBLA's point in opposing AOC laws.  Corax 23:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The rules on categorisation are quite clear. All subcategorisation is being systematically deleted from articles. No page can declare that the categorisation rules do not apply there. The same categorisation rules apply on all articles. It does not matter if 100% of users vote to break the categorisation rules. Admins and those working on categories will simply delete subcategories automatically on all pages where they have been added without exception. That process has been going on for months and will continue to do so. It is a standard process and not open to a vote. All subcategories are being deleted. It is that simple. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Under WP guidelines Articles should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software.

The exception does not fit the current debate. As the central issue is pederesty, that is the category that goes on to the page. LGBT is a subcategory of that in this instance and so is not included. It does not fit the rare exceptions where a subcategory and category co-exist, which largely cover people. Admins and those organising the categorisation system are systematically removing categories from articles where they are already linked through the article through a subcategory of an existing category. In the last few weeks hundreds of articles have been so edited. No matter what any vote on the page says, the LGBT category, as a subcategory of an existing directly relevant category, will be deleted. You can try to play King Canute and attempt to stop it, but given that large numbers of users and admins are engaged in this process, that subcategorisation will be deleted by someone. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't see where LGBT organizations is a subcategory listed under Pederasty of vice versa. Can you draw my attention to where this is the case? Corax 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nambla on pedophilia advocacy article
You'll probably have to explain yourself on the talk page, editors of this article tend to take people in bad faith, unfortuntely. The article tends to take pederastry and pedophilia as the same thing, perhaps you could help us clear this up? Anyway, thanks for helping edit this enormous and rather inaccurate article, wikipedia needs more people who do. Lotusduck 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess NAMBLA isn't an LGBT org after all.--69.243.48.190 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to a member of the mediation committee it is. He may have removed it, from what I understand, because NAMBLA being classified correctly upset too many people.  But that's irrelevant.  This is going to mediation, then perhaps arbitration.  You should also note that the final tally for whether NAMBLA belongs in LGBT organization is 15-11 in FAVOR.  Corax 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Corax, you are me knight in shining armour! Ta to your effort in defending the rightness on categorisation of NAMBLA. Now that gap in FAVOR has extended and Adam Carr has long vamoosed. Hooray! MarkBeer 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I really like your style. You argue rationally and reasonably. This whole categorisation issue is getting bloody ridiculous, but you always manage to make your points succinctly. Kudos Natgoo 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. Corax 01:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA
Well I realise this is a a very controversial topic, I would ask that you avoid attacking the votes of persons who happen to vote against own preferences. I would also ask that you withdraw your allegation that my vote is a "personal favour" for Jtdirl. This is both an unwarranted personal attack on Jtdirl and I, and is completely unfounded. My vote is clearly accompanied by a short statement of my reasoning, which I regard as a sufficient explanation.

Any messages between myself and Jtdirl are free to view on both our discussion pages. Not once have we communicated with regards to the NAMBLA article. It is no coincidence that we both have communicated in the past over various issues given we are both long standing members of the project, and have a tendency to edit in some of the same subject areas. Your rather paranoid interpretation of this is no basis for a personal attack on either of us. Astrotrain 22:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I haven't attacked anybody. I simply expressed how odd I thought it was that, after this issue about categorization has dragged on for weeks, a person inexplicably decides to show up and vote who has said absolutely nothing about the issue previously, offers no basis for his vote, and who votes immediately after the vote of another person with whom he seems to be in frequent communication.


 * Second, if you want to start a campaign against personal attacks, you should begin by reprimanding your friend user:jtdirl who has not only made personal attacks (calling people homophobic), but has also wikistalked another user, trolling a completely different article to which he was contributing. Corax 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandal blocked indefinitely
I have blocked indefinitely the user who posted grotesque personal allegations about you. If you want to have the allegations removed from the archives, contact a developer and they will delete them so that no-one will ever see them and they won't show up in searches. Developers regularly delete such allegations when they are made. If they return using another identity and try it again let me know and I'll block them under any other identity also. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I don't mind if they remain, as I do not violate any laws and have nothing to hide. Corax 01:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No Problem. Glad to help. I don't doubt you have nothing to hide. Remember though that in years to come historians will no doubt research the development of WP and will read the archives of talk pages. If the comments are still in the records and they can access them they may quote examples of such allegations being made and some users find the idea that such comments, however untrue, are buried in their records, a bit unnerving. No-one would think you are trying to hide something if you decided to have them deleted. Similar allegations made against other users, against Jimbo and against George W. Bush have been deleted in the past. Some talk page comments can also show up in google searches. It is a long shot but again some users don't feel comfortable about their usernics potentially matching them up against such allegations.

Whatever you decide to do, no-one on WP takes the slightest head to such allegations. WP does have a policy of taking ruthless action against anyone posting such claims. I was one of those who indefinitely blocked scores of users for posting such comments against other users when a handful of vandals laid siege to the same group of pages and posted the comments openly in edit summaries. The standard block in those cases is indefinite. In reality an indefinite block against an IP does expire, but it lasts long enough to tell the vandal to fuck off. As I said, if someone else appears to post the same abuse, let me know and I'll block them immediately. Sometimes the same user tends to try to visit the same page and post the same abuse over and over again. If someone does that repeatedly in rapid succession, have your talk page either sprotected or protected temporarily. When they get the message that they cannot do the vandalism they usually go away and find somewhere else to play. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)