User talk:DanB DanD

User talk:DanB DanD/Archive 1

Anti-feminism
Dan this entire article is a collection of weasel-worded opinions. There are no clear definitions here, no reference texts, and no sources for the concept itself. Please be fairminded when you revert content.


 * Why did you post to my talk page's archive? I have moved the discussion to the current page.
 * Anyway, I deleted your content because it talked about the article it was in, not because of POV issues.
 * Dan B † Dan D 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant
This is one of the best diffs I've ever seen anywhere, in any article:. It didn't occur to me, but of course your links are the appropriate ones, not the old links. Cheers! Herostratus 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well thank you :) Dan B † Dan D  08:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Antifeminism and other related articles
DanB I am willing to work with you about your POV concerns. However, I will fight all attempts to revert my edits without reasonable discussions on the discussion pages. This article resembled a radical feminists rant when I arrived here with double speak definitions (eg defining a dissenting feminist or other critic of feminist ideology as an anti-feminist with no basis other than slander) typical to totalitarian tyrannies. That is MY POV concern. What are your specific POV issues? (drop in editor)

Manga Genre
What is that? Bosniak 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Manga are Japanese comic books (I should really have said "a manga and anime subgenre"). Dan B † Dan D  23:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Neil Patrick Harris
Hi, Dan :) Actually, I can live with your current edit.  The phrase you had in there was "came out to the wider media", which didn't quite sound right to me.  I thought I was just cleaning up by saying "came out more clearly," which is how I see his statement to People.  I meant no offense! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NP - and thanks for your help on the page, too! As far as NPH's high school, can we trust |IMDB? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm - that's a nice little bio. I think imdb is member-edited too, and I remember a couple of cases where they had mistaken information on upcoming films based on rumor. But it looks reliable enough until a better source is found. Dan B † Dan D  22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Violence against LGBT persons
Good job adding the Atherton image. Much better than the Orpheus illustration, for purposes of this article. --Textorus 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, well thanks! Dan B † Dan D  20:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagging
Hi, I thought I might suggest that you consider putting the  tag after specific sentences that require referencing instead of the   tag over entire sections. It might help other editors know what to approach in their hunts for citations. Your tagging in homophobia encouraged me to make this suggestion. Thanks for considering my thoughts, --Kukini 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those whole sections are unsourced POV! Dan B † Dan D  21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree...but I find better response to the, unless you intend to delete the whole sections. --Kukini 21:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilson
I was surprised that you would limit yourself to such a facile definition. Have you read anything by Wilson, or the article in question? Haiduc 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposing mergers
I note that you put a merge proposal tag on Hip and buttock padding, saying that it has been proposed that the article has been proposed for merger with Buttock augmentation.

If you want to propose mergers, I'd strongly recommend that you read WP:MERGE to find out all of the steps necessary. It is not simply a case of adding a tag to one page. Before proposing a merge, you might want to discuss it to gauge other people's reaction before formally proposing it:
 * on the article's talk page
 * in the case of LGBT articles, on the project talk page
 * on TG articles, you're welcome to discuss it with me on my talk page.

I have removed the merge tag from the Hip and buttock padding article. If, after reading the following comment, you wish to propose the merger correctly, you're welcome to do so. Be advised, however, that I will strongly oppose the merger.

The Hip and buttock padding article is about temporary prosthetic padding worn to make a male body look feminine. Buttock augmentation is about permanent surgical implants. The subject matter is completely different. Proposing to merge these would be on par with proposing to merge breast prostheses with breast augmentation. --AliceJMarkham 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I totally didn't read the process before posting – and I was just scolding someone yesterday for doing the same thing with an afd! Anyway, I should stick to subjects I know more about. Dan B † Dan D  02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's okay. Everybody makes mistakes, even me (fairly regularly). "Learn by other people's mistakes because you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself." :) --AliceJMarkham 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
I realized that Speedy Delete was incorrect, but in retrospect, requesting a standard delete would result in the same farce as the vote on Article:Same-sex Marriage and Article:Traditional Marriage. I'll try standard delete this time, if nothing but to practice navigating the afd process. Nkras 07:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

invitation to join.
Hey, I noticed you have our wikiproject nav template on your userpage but aren't a member. So I'd like to formally invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies, and hope you will accept. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well thanks, I'll do so! Dan B † Dan D  20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LGBT
Welcome :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice call
A good reorganization call on Animal sexuality. The prior organization order stemmed from its roots as "animal homosexuality", and it hadn't been reviewed in light of later work. Good one. Thanks! FT2 (Talk 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage
Your comment about traditional marriage made me think that this article (traditional marriage) could be rewritten in a way which would provide legitimate information that was not merely POV. So I attempted a quick rewrite. I would appreciate if you could review the changes I made.--GMS508 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been blocked from recreation! Dan B † Dan D  02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write the NPOV version in a temp space, such as WikiProject:LGBT studies/Traditional marriage - it can later be moved into the main article space. --Core desat  02:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You are free to recreate it, provided the content is totally different from that deleted at the AfD. Anything remotely similar (ie. highly POV) like the version that was deleted at AfD can be speedily deleted under G4. However, you have shown intention to create a NPOV, verified article, so I'd reccomend you make it at WikiProject LGBT studies/Traditional marriage draft, and let Coredesat (the closer of the AfD) have a look over it to make sure it isn't POV/repost of deleted content etc. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nkras
Do you know if there is a formal avenue of appeal for this blocking? In my opinion, this was a case of overreaction on the admin's part, and I would like to see it reversed. These sort of draconian actions reinforce my ambivalence about participating in this project. Jeffpw 10:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like only Nkras himself is meant to use that unblock template. I'm not sure how to request it on his behalf. Dan B † Dan D  23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I discussed the situation with the "admin" who blocked him, and he said Nkras needed to email him and request an unblock. I have emailed this to Nkras. Further, if this goes to RFC or Arbcom, I will support an unblock. Jeffpw 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

request for arbitration.
arbitration has been requested for a dispute that you are or may be involved in. please see Requests for arbitration r b-j 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

working?
???

about the article on adolescence
Hey, i've noticed that you saw the incredible POV etc. etc. in the adolescents article, and.... sadly... the bias is STILL there :-(, I've recently begun trying to fix up that article and one other person has joined in to help, namely i need a helper in trying to create a temporary replacement text for the section on teen sexuality.

The current version, which is only there due to what i see as unreasonable edit warring is this. underneath it is MY proposed revision WHICH I put in but was almost immediately reverted. The article on adolescence is #1 on a google search and i fear that if the bias and non neutrality policy conforming statements (most of which are from a certain 'Leonard sax' which the person who inserted them consistently tells me to read his book (he hasn't given me easily peer reviewable online sources or studies to go from and keeps on rambling about 'learning something useful from it he's given me NO online sources for that matter) Will probably cause misconceptions on teens and adults who read the article --- CURRENT STATE: Physical maturation resulting from puberty leads to an interest in sexual activities, sometimes leading to teenage pregnancy. Increasingly, teenage sexual encounters do not occur in the context of a romantic relationship, but in an impersonal, merely sexual "hook up."[4] The "impersonality of twenty-first-century adolescent sex victimizes girls" and "plenty of harm" is done to boys as well.[5] As adolescents are not mentally or emotionally prepared to handle feelings and emotions that come with sex, nor financially able to support children, "early sexual activity - whether in or out of a romantic relationship - does far more harm than good."[6]

According to US News & World reports, among experts one thing "nearly everyone agrees on is that STDs and risky 'anything but intercourse' behaviors are rampant among teens."[7] "Teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of" sexual activities.[8] According to Lynn Ponton, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California-San Francisco and author of The Sex Lives of Teenagers, "early initiation into sexual behaviors [takes] a toll on teens' mental health. The result, she says, can be 'dependency on boyfriends and girlfriends, serious depression around breakups and cheating, [and a] lack of goals.'"[9]

Of US teens aged 15-19 who are having sexual intercourse almost all (98%) use at least one form of contraception. The most popular form, at 94% usage, are condoms and the birth control pill is second at 61%. [10] U.S. teen pregnancies had decreased 28% between 1990 and 2000 from 117 pregnancies per every 1,000 teens to 84 per 1,000 by the year 2,000.[11] Research in the United States has shown that pregnancy and STD transmission in sexually active teens has gone down over the past 10 years.[citation needed] Contraceptive such as condoms lower the risk of conceiving a child and can help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, but they are not 100% effective.[12] One STD that can not be prevented with condoms or the birth control pill is the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV may lead to certain types of cancer and genital warts.[13]

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics "early sexual intercourse among American adolescents represents a major public health problem. Although early sexual activity may be caused by a variety of factors, the media are believed to play a significant role. In film, television, and music, sexual messages are becoming more explicit in dialogue, lyrics, and behavior. In addition, these messages contain unrealistic, inaccurate, and misleading information that young people accept as fact. Teens rank the media second only to school sex education programs as a leading source of information about sex." [14]

The harm done to teenagers who engage in sexual activities is especially true for girls. In a 2003 study, 89% of girls reported feeling pressured by boys to have sex.[15] Before "age 15, a majority of first intercourse experiences among females are reported to be non-voluntary."[16] Girls will often become intoxicated before engaging in sexual activities because it "numbs the experience for them, making it less embarrassing and less emotionally painful."[17] A girl is "far more likely to feel used and abused after a typical" hook up.[18] According to the US Department of Health and Human Services early sexual experiences are a problem for several reasons.

First, the younger the age of first sexual intercourse, the more likely that the experience was coercive, and forced sexual intercourse is related to long lasting negative effects. Secondly, the younger the age of first sexual intercourse, the greater the risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. This is because those who begin having sex at young ages are generally exposed to risk for a longer time, are less likely to use contraception, generally have more sexual partners, and tend to engage in higher risk sexual behaviors such as alcohol or drug use prior to sexual intercourse and having multiple concurrent sexual partners. It must be recognized as well that early intercourse is frequently not voluntary. Among females, as noted above, the majority of initial sexual experiences that occur at age 14 or younger are non-voluntary.[19]

Boys are less likely to see sex as connected to an emotional relationship. However, by the time a young man is "in his early twenties, he will rely on his girlfriend or wife to be his primary emotional caregiver."[20] If he can not establish an emotional relationship with a woman, who does view sex as connected to intimacy, then he is more likely to become depressed, commit suicide or die from illness.[21] With all the issues and problems relating to adolescent sex, according to the Medical College of Wisconsin, "Ideally, [teens] won’t be having sex."[22]

my proposed replacement of the teen sexuality and sexual behaviors section until disputes can be resolved is below.

(CDC links to indicate the drop in pregnancies and STD transmission are in the main article, having been left in but moved to about the bottom of the section where someone who'd read the upper section would most likely be so injected with fear about the subject that it wouldn't have ANY impact on them whatsoever) ---______________________________________________________________--- http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpv_learn_myths.cfm

While a highly controversial topic, both sides of the issue for and against this activity have been fighting fiercely to prove their points on both relegious, secular, scientific, and statistical grounds.

This section deals with....

Adolescent Sexual Activity In The United States

Research (Shown in the paragraph below) HAS proven In The United States however that pregnancy and std transmission in sexually active teens has gone down dramatically over the past 10 years, both of which have been leading secular reasons for stopping adolescent sexual activity (For pregnancy this is vaginal intercourse and for STD's like HIV it is anal, oral, or vaginal sex that counts towards the statistics, other STD's like syphillis etc. are available at the reference page)

Centers For Disease Control study On Rates For STD, and Pregnancy in United States teens

Of US teens aged 15-19 who are having sexual intercourse almost all (98%) use at least one form of contraception. The most popular form, at 94% usage, are condoms and the birth control pill at 61%. [4]

U.S. teen pregnancies had decreased 28% between 1990 and 200 from 117 pregnancies of every 1,000 to 84 per 1,000 by the year 2,000.[5]

Plase note however that WORLDWIDE: "Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own."[6]

Also, in the case of HPV condoms DO NOT completely stop the risk of contraction oh HPV, however the use of condoms has been shown by studies to lower the risk of getting this Disease[7]

Some of these viruses are called "high-risk" types, and may cause abnormal Pap tests. They may also lead to cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or penis. Others are called "low-risk" types, and they may cause mild Pap test abnormalities or genital warts. Genital warts are single or multiple growths or bumps that appear in the genital area, and sometimes are cauliflower shaped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC).


 * It's flattering to be asked for my input, but I'm over-Wiki-extended as it is. Good luck with the article! Dan B † Dan D  19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

moved from my user page
Pardon me, but how may I contact you regarding your comments to me? Thank you. JamesH1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesH1934 (talk • contribs)


 * Just the way you did – by posting to my user page. However, it's usual to use the "Talk" tab for discussion rather than the user page itself, so I've moved your question to my talk page and also copied it to your talk page. You can reply in either place and I'll see it.


 * I'm happy to respond to any comments you may have, but understand that I'm just a regular editor of the site like you – I'm not an authority or anything like that.


 * By the way, it's usual to sign and timestamp your posts to talk pages (not your edits to articles). You can do that by typing four tildes in a row: ~.


 * Dan B † Dan D 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

reply moved from top of page:

Ref: your comment concerning my post of ===Arguments about function and purpose=== under Same Sex Marriage

Your statement that: "...the fact is that the purpose of your essay is clearly to express a particular moral point of view,..." was a startling surprise to me. What moral point of view do you mean, and what words of mine did you construe as "conveying a moral point of view"?

I wrote the material I uploaded from the perspective of its being a pragmatic examination of the core issue involved. In examining the issue, I began with the first step of asking myself why marriage exists as an institution and what purpose is it intended to serve for society and government. (i.e., what is its original point or purpose.) That approach seemed eminantly reasonable to me, but apparantly we parted company somewhere.

Thanks for any clarification you can provide. (I have an observation regarding the concept of a neutral point of view in a wikipedia topic, but prefer to deal with only one issue at a time and this apparant miscommunication is of more interest to me.) JamesH1934 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in... [rest of puellanavis' reply deleted...]


 * Thanks for stepping in, but I think it's best to keep the discussion in one place, particularly if it's going to get long. I'll comment at James' talk page. Dan B † Dan D  07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see my talk page for my extensive response and comments. I repeat here, thanks for your thoughtful observations, Dan.

JamesH1934 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
{| width=100% cellpadding=10px 10px 5px 5px;
 * style='border: 2px solid #9B75AD; background-color: #EED8EE;' |

WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice
This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of &quot;Coordinator&quot; for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. –
 * }

Image:GLogo.png; going up for deletion or not?
I notice that you tagged Image:GLogo.png as being on IfD, but I'm not seeing it on the page. Is it there under some other name or as part of a mass-nom or something? --tjstrf talk 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My computer froze as I was adding it to the page, and I had to reboot. It'll be there in a second. Dan B † Dan D  20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter
SatyrBot 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Carry vaguely
Dan, I just thought I would mention the fact that what you see at the pederasty article is the spillover of a nasty discussion that descended to denial of academic sources and ad hominem attacks against me by the fellow in question. That is why I had nothing to say to the man, since I had said all already at the Leonardo da Vinci talk page where instead of responding on a business level he went on a rampage. So please do not step into his shoes, and present your own argument if you should chose to do so. Not that you are the most neutral editor when it comes to pederasty issues, but we all have to deal with each other. Regards, Haiduc 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is an admirable thing. Dan B † Dan D  04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter
This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bieber
Hello Dans,

A month ago you asked on Talk: Homosexuality for the first name of psychoanalist Bieber and some reference. I answered on that Talk page, but here's some more information. Irving Bieber (1908-1991) published this title in 1962: I didn't find the APA reviews of Bieber, but this is a small APA publication: Here's a more general history, the title speaks for itself: This interesting, voluminous history of homosexuality treats Bieber and the APA discussion succinctly: Some useful remarks about Bieber and his associates may be found at the following links:
 * Homosexuality. A Psychoanalytic Study: New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962. 358 p.
 * APA committee on gay concerns. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, [1984]. - [4] p.
 * Ronald Bayer: Homosexuality and American psychiatry: the politics of diagnosis. New York, NY: Basic, 1981. 216 p.
 * David F. Greenberg: The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1988. pp. 428-430.
 * 
 * 

You might use this information to sharpen the Wikipedia information about Bieber and the APA. Soczyczi 00:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Berry image
You need to log your deletion request, SqueakBox 23:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am! There are so many reasons to delete it that I've been typing for all this time! Dan B † Dan D  00:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, well I certainly endorse the deletion and only cropped the image because with an unrelated McDonald's worker in the pic it was worse! SqueakBox 00:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that this is a laughing matter for someone. Berry's notability is clear.  It is only by the deletion of all mention of his other claims to notability that this spurious claim can be advanced.  Depicting someone as he was at the time he did the things for which he became notable is a classic case of fair use.  What is your overarching issue with having an article covering this person?  Is it squeamishness?  Dislike?  Where are you coming from, and what compromise can we reach?  --Ssbohio 01:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My concerns are as I've stated them. I'll accept whatever consensus is reached in the ifds and regarding the redirect. Dan B † Dan D 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's as may be, but the fact remains that when your attempt to challenge the article via its talkpage didn't go smoothly, you changed venue and decided to take your chances at IfD instead. Coincidentally, the two image nominations were made such that they fell on separate days' pages in IfD, and I was only given courtesy notification of one of them.  I can't help but think that there are more above-board ways to achieve consensus.  --Ssbohio 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the unlikely event that some third party reads this talk page in the future, I'll note that I alerted the uploader of each of the two images (Ssbohio uploaded one of the two), announced the ifds on the talk page where I had begun the discussion of deletion, and added an ifd link to the caption of each picture.


 * Dan B † Dan D 05:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You, however, were on notice that SqueakBox was listed as the uploader of JustinPicture1 because he had edited the picture & uploaded it back under a different name, not because it originated with him. Whether by deliberation or carelessness, you never notified me, the provider of the fair use rationale for the image, that you were challenging that rationale.  Simply because SqueakBox broke the GFDL "chain" by creating the cropped image without incorporating the original image history, that doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore the history of the image, which has been made clear in Talk:Justin Berry and other places.  At the very least, you have an obligation as a matter of good faith & fair dealing to inform someone who has contributed to this image beyond the editor who already agrees with your actions.  Add that to the fact that you broke the IfDs over two days so they wouldn't appear together, and it raises questions about your motives.  In this case, your nonfeasance is as poisonous to the collaborative nature of this project as it would be if it were, indeed, malfeasance.  At this point, your actions only appear ill-intentioned;  They are, presumptively, not.  So, tell me, why did you only inform me of one of the IfDs and place the IfDs in such a way that when I went to the one I was informed of, I wouldn't see the other?  --Ssbohio 13:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am grooving pretty hard on the word "nonfeasance." Thanks! Dan B † Dan D 18:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. We are the beneficiaries of a rich linguistic heritage.  I try to use the right word to express my meaning precisely.  In this case, I described my issue with you as one of nonfeasance because it involved a failure to act when, in my view, there was reason to act.  I have several good reasons to keep the Justin Berry article as a seperate entity, not a redirect: Gilo Tunno, Ken Gourlay, Eddie Mulak, Tim Richards, Greg Mitchel, and minors whom I will Identify only as E., R., T., and D.  These people weren't involved with Kurt Eichenwald, and they are part of Berry's story.  Before the article was chopped up & later "nuked," their relation to Berry and his impact on their lives was explained.  It makes no more sense to change Justin Berry into a redirect of Kurt Eichenwald than to do the reverse.  Each is separately notable on his own merits, and each person's story cannot be fully told only within the context of the other person's article. --Ssbohio 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The IFD for this image is not re-opened. I just put the discussion back up for reference and maybe some remarks from the closing admin. If you would like to dispute the outcome of the IFD further you can submit to Deletion review -Nv8200p talk 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I will pursue at least a discussion of the strange way process was handled here. Dan B † Dan D  01:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Process seems to have been followed appropriately in this IfD. I think your assertion about both images was wrong & that you introduced emotionally-charged arguments about depictions of prostitution and salaciousness that simply didn't exist in the images being discussed.  I think that one deleting administrator agreed that one of the two images was keepable under policy.  I also believe that you, me, and both administrators acted by their best judgment in a good-faith attempt to write an encyclopedia.  That the decision was split between the two images goes to show how close the margin can be on issues like these.
 * Is there reason to believe, in your view, that the Keep closure was improper? The image of Gourlay & Berry was, if anything, even more clearly irreplaceable than the one that got deleted.  Unless you believe that a convicted sex offender serving what is essentially a life sentence can somehow be photographed in the company of the person whom he was convicted of having sex with?  That picture could not happen again, and it illustrates one of the important aspects of the article.  It falls within the bounds of fair use by a good margin. --Ssbohio 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

comment on IfDs

 * Well, it's your "if anything" that I'm having trouble with - I see no difference in replaceability between the images at all, and I think that, in judging one as replaceable and the other as not, the admins applied the fair-use policy inconsistently.


 * You yourself agree that the same judgment ought to be applied to both photographs, and you used the same rationale for both.


 * This leaves me, as someone who has often uploaded fair-use media and would like to know how to do so in accordance with policy, confused about how to go about it. What is it about the second photo that is irreplaceable, where the first is not?


 * Of course, NO photograph of a living person is truly replaceable in that no other photo can show the person at that moment, in that particular action or interaction. That moment may be uniquely notable - the moment an athlete wins a race, a disaster, an especially celebrated performance


 * But the policy typically disregards the notability of particular events. From the point of view of fair use, any free photograph is held to be a good replacement for any fair-use photo of the same person. The Wikipedia pages of athletes don't show fair-use photos of their greatest achievements, or artists in their most celebrated performances.


 * Well, both photos of Berry showed him involved in the activities for which he gained his (however faint or fleeting) notoriety, and neither can be replaced by a photo that will fully show the same thing. So what's the difference? The single difference between the first photo and the second is that the first showed him alone, while the second showed him with an associate.


 * Am I to conclude that depiction of a notable activity is NOT good justification of a fair-use photo, but that a notable interaction IS?


 * That is the principle that would follow from the opposite judgments on these two otherwise very similar images. But I don't think the two admins intended to establish such a rule, or any rule at all. my impression is that the admins closed the IfDs impulsively, wishing simply to be done with the topic, rather than trying to apply policy consistently.


 * This is unfortunate for editors trying to get an understanding of how the (often-shifting!) fair use policy functions and will be applied in the future.


 * As for process as such, it certainly wasn't followed when Yamla deleted the discussion. That action has now been (equally arbitrarily) reversed, which is itself puzzling. Another sign, I think, of the impatience and lack of attention of the involved admins! Unfortunately, when work is done impatiently, we often find we have to do it over again.


 * Dan B † Dan D 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment on IfDs

 * These asserions were such that I felt compelled to respond to them despite your deleting them before I could. Feel free to re-delete your statements above, or to strike them out if you no longer stand by them.
 * Taking the issues you raised in turn:
 * You see no difference in replaceability between the images at all. How do you propose we once more photograph Berry & Gourlay together?  Gourlay is serving what amounts to a life sentence.  He's as unavailable as anyone I can think of.
 * You claim that I agree that the same judgment ought to be applied to both photographs and that I used the same rationale for both. Untrue and disingenuous.  The rationales were similar, but not the same.  I believe both images should have been kept, it's true, but for different reasons, as I explained in the IfD for each.
 * You ask what there is about the second photo that is irreplaceable, where the first is not. First, one of the people pictured is unavailable to be photographed with the other; Second, it depicts a relationship that's discussed in the article, whereas the text explaining the significance of the first photo was hacked out of the article by Phil Sandifer.  Even if you disagree with my arguments, can you at least admit that I've made them, and that they're different for each photo?
 * You ask if you should conclude that depiction of a notable activity is NOT good justification of a fair-use photo, but that a notable interaction IS. The first photo isn't significant because of Berry's activity in the phot.  As I've explained in the IfD, it's significant because it depicts Berry's appearance at a time when he was selling his website as having legal (18 & over) content.  And, with the second photo, their interaction is illustrative of their relationship to one another, which is both significant to Berry's story & is discussed in the article.
 * You opine that the admins closed the IfDs impulsively. Do you have evidence for this, or just the accusation?  Both of these admins applied community standards of fair use & Foundation policy in a manner consistent with their historical application.  The two fact sets are different, and admins are called upon to exercise judgment.  Both did so in ways that are justifiable.
 * You further accuse that process certainly wasn't followed when Yamla deleted the discussion. Really?  As a community, we blank controversial, tendentious, or BLP-impacting discussion in closed XfDs when it makes sense to do so.  You spread the ForestFire from Talk:Justin Berry to WP:IfD & Yamla (in effect) cut a firebreak and prevent further spread.  I have no strong objection to not deleting the debate, either, but I certainly support the decision to delete it.
 * You go on to deride the impatience and lack of attention of the involved admins. I've discussed each deletion with the deleting admin and, whether I agree with the decision or not, I find no evidence that the decision was made through impatience or inattention on their part.  I assume good faith in the acts of my fellow Wikipedians;  I hope you do too.
 * You and I each disagree with one of the IfD decisions. The difference is that, where you accuse Yamla of out-of-process, imaptient, and inattentive administrative action, I hold no such opinion of Nv8200p's actions.  He & I disagree about the outcome, but he judged the evidence differently than I did and applied policy according to that judgment, which is what he's supposed to do.  He hear dme out & chose not to reverse his decision, again, within policy & not a sign of impatience or inattention.  I can't see justification for the allegations you've raised.  I urge you to let it go, but if you insist on refighting these issues in a third forum, then I guess I'll have to follow your lead.  I'd prefer, however, if you contributed to the ongoing RFC process instead.  And, if you have fair-use issues with any of your uploads, just let me know & I'll be glad to help you work on the fair-use rationale or anything else.  --Ssbohio 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Dan B † Dan D 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that you've seen my response to your contribution, feel free to delete both and refocus discussion at the article talk page. I'll only continue discussing these deletions with you if you choose to continue the discussion. --Ssbohio 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Faludi-stiffed.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Faludi-stiffed.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Amant.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Amant.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input on deletion of Greek love
I have poured over this article along with several others, Platonic love and Pederasty in ancient Greece, and strongly feel that "Greek love" has been the victim of POV, OR and the pushing of a social agenda. It appears that the much of the prose has been slanted towards defining the term as pedophilia. This is by no means agreed upon by scholars. I can find very little actual information directly qualifying as a reliable reference. Even authors that I do find admit they are just labeling the term to mean man-boy love. It seems that some can't even agree on the Greek word "Eros", which is another subject entirely (well....almost) anyway. Your input would be greatly appreciated.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek love - again
Hi! There is a new discussion at Talk:Greek love that you might be interested in. The discussion is about whether or not the article is Original Research and whether or not it should be replaced with a disambiguation page. I have cited some entries on the talk page history as an indication that OR is involved, where you rightly identified the article as "muddled". Your argument then was ignored and WP has suffered the consequences ever since. McZeus (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia


A tag has been placed on Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sturunner (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia


A tag has been placed on Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Sturunner (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia


A tag has been placed on Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Sturunner (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wet Palms


The article Wet Palms has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * A WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable film series & does not meet WP:NFILM. No sources included in the article, significant RS cannot be found either.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)