User talk:FT2/S-tmp

Regarding your WP:OR: "I've noticed with some alarm that there is absolutely NO peer-reviewed published research in this area." (above)

A statement we know was in fact unresearched and in error, and should have been at least slightly checked first before assertation. I have now spent some 3 hours of my time researching specifically who, and where, these peer reviews took place - a task that should not have been necessary other than to meet your POV issues, insofar as they are verifiably the consensus of experts in the field (see above).

One last time, and let's put this to bed, because you should have checked this and apparently never have, just assumed. All have in fact been published in peer reviewed journals. And not just "published generally", but published in peer reviewed journals, in this field. All are respected widely within the field, are invited to lecture widely, and the relevant scholarly works are apparently considered reliable and credible (as per above). Again, it seems to me that you more than once invent or embellish "facts" or create novel ideas, without reading or reference to the current knowledge in the field. I asked you several times to do so; you continued to refuse. This was all easily checked online or offline, had you taken my advice on OR/NPOV, ceased making personal attacks, and read up on the basics of the subject you are trying to edit.

'''Miletski "Bestiality and Zoophilia: An exploratory study"'''

(Sandnabba and) Beetz et al. "Characteristics of a sample of sadomasochistically-oriented males with recent experience of sexual contact with animals" (co-authored)

'''Beetz (2 papers), Miletski, et al Extended series/season of papers on zoophilia (multiple papers)'''

In addition, though you appeared to think only Beetz and Miletski were important, other reputed sexologists have stated the same views, and again, these are peer review published too. Example:

'''Weinberg and Williams "Zoophilia in Men: A Study of Sexual Interest in Animals"'''

You demand the most stringent indexing (see above) and fact checks for everything it seems, save your own view. Here's one last edit for you, on Hani Miletski:

All of which is besides the point. The main point is that the above criteria is one editors' opinion (OR) and your views are evidently not at all those of experts in the field (which you completely ignore). My impression remains that you are seeking possible criteria which are not the view of the field, but which would bias citable material strongly to your viewpoint. I am not at peace that you 1/ fabricate "facts" on multiple articles, and then 2/ respond to concerns with personal attack.

Editors' patience (or mine anyway) for POV warfare, persistent personal attack, editing to make a point, and OR, being at an end, and mediation rejected, please see ___________ instead. FT2 (Talk 03:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)