User talk:Illuminato/Older discussion

Illuminato
This is a warning. I have noticed your 'clean up' of the Talk Page on adolescent Sexuality. However you removed mostly new and relevant discussions and left mostly old discussion.

you have a history of randomly 'cleaning up' your talk page and you use the excuse. "It was getting too long".

However the talk page for was hardly as long as many other talk pages and when you blanked your user pages It seems that all that 'cleaning up' took place right after i'd placed a concern or question or responded to you.

Also there is the question of your constant reverts and edits to the article on Adolescent Sexuality. Namely how you revert any changes made by anyone else but you still squeeze in information based on POV and ONLY POV.

I ask you to respect WP:NPOV and WP:Civility If I made spelling mistakes or grammatical or formatting errors then please excuse. You have used minor spelling mistakes to point out 'how young I am' and as an excuse in the past to delete large additions to the article instead of fixing those mistak esand I wish to let you know that any mistakes are accidental and to please correct any spelling errors you might find.

If you remove this request I will place a civility 2nd warning template on your talk page as your conduct on this site (especially towards me) has been uncivil, dishonest, and is clearly POV pushing that results in unfair edits and reverts to Adolescent Sexuality and Adolescent Sexuality In The United States as well as the section on adolescence in themain article on United states Culture that has little to no supplemental value to these articles whatsoever.

Please use care, you're REALLY acting like a jerk. (I'm sorry If i offended you but you've been a problem to me and have prevented me and others from getting little to no work done on these articles or sections in question for months)

Nateland 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is needed.
I once added quotations to this sentence as it is OBVIOUSLY SOMEONES opinion and not a proven fact. (Trying to remove it from the lead, where it is unfairly made to look like world view) was reversed by Illuminato and so now I will keep it out of the article until YOU. Illuminato clarify some things.

What do you mean by Emtional Intimacy?

If you say this isn't someone's statement. Then WHAT IS IT?. If you're claiming it's a worldview then open your eyes and realize its narrow to think such a belief is a world view followed by almost 6.5 billion people.

Also, if this IS statement then don't remove the quotation marks I put around it and the citation needed. If it IS a statement then say WHOSE statement it is. And put in a section respective to the country. Putting the blow 'fact' into the intro of this article is unnuetral and defacing to the integrity and honesty of this article.

"When teens engage in sexual activities that are separate from emotional intimacy they may develop habits that will cause them to have trouble forming adult relationships in the future."

I and others would prefer you to discuss this instead of just instantly reverting the edit. Remember, many more people are AGAINST your additions then there are people FOR your additions. So consider that fact and always remember.

Wikipedia prefers a consensus to be reached by all users. It's not always such a good idea to be the 'odd man out'. (It'll lessen your credentials and integrity on this website) Nateland 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Xiner (talk, email) 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that the 3RR rule does not distinguish between which passage is reverted in an article, and you have reverted three times today. Xiner (talk, email) 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I don't want anyone to be blocked on a technicality. Xiner (talk, email) 02:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exasperation.
Illuminato, Admit it.

Those two articles ARE simply copied text. I left the adolescent sexuality in India article stay as is because it wasn't carbon copied text.

Remember, your actions are putting undue strain on the servers. I'll put it up for vote in the talk page. And Illuminato, I'm sorry but you'll probably outnumbered. And seeing as you are about the only one objecting it WILL probably go through. I'm simply asking you to put aside your views and think rationally. DOZENS of people have complained about and critisized your actions on wikipedia. Far more than mine.

Sincerely, Nateland 00:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not support vandalization.
The ip address that reverted the change I made to the article on Adolescent Sexuality was wrong in doing so. The proposed rewrite had been up for forum for almost two weeks. And you just avoided debating only to return and debate AFTER the usual slot had ended only to support an unwarranted revert on the article.

My version is very well done. It has decent spelling, grammar, punctuation (although those don't count all too much), actually tells WHAT Adolescent sexuality is about. NOT peoples opinions on it. I don't CARE if you claim your article has a 'positive paragraph', the rest of it is still quotes by a handful of people claiming this and that and this.

No room is left for information of Adolescent Sexuality itself whatsoever.

I'm sorry if you thought you could avoid discussion then just come back to debate it. YOU CAN'T!. Nolt only is it uncivil, it's dishonest and a cheap way of extreme POV pushing. Now I don't know who that IP address poster was.

But please, show your civility and do not support vandalism. There are far more important things to tend to then an edit war over a single article going on for four months as of now. Nateland 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Adolescent sexual behavior
Hi. I'm doing a bit of newpage patrolling and if you don't mind me asking, why are you creating Adolescent sexual behavior when it's a duplicate of Adolescent sexuality? If they aren't intended to be about distinct subjects, one has to assume it's going to be a content fork. If you do have a different article in mind, I suggest you explain so in the talk page. Otherwise, you can just make the article a redirect. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case the correct option would be to move the page. Otherwise you end up creating confusion for both newpage patrollers like me and recent changes patrollers like Moresnooso. But yeah, make sure you also have consensus to do it before going ahead.Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also commented on the talk page. You just told me that your intention was to just rename the Adolescent sexuality article and that you had consensus to do so. Looking at the talk page, I don't see that and your recent edits also show that you had something else than a simple renaming in mind. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Morenooso 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have consensus and also appear to be in an edit war. Recommend further discussion on talkpage. Morenooso 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Morenooso 03:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus to change the title of the article?. There was never any discussion on changing the name. Illuminato just created that spin-off and said it was his 'proposal of a rewrite of the current revision' of which he already has a proposal and he also made it the main article or something. It's hard to tell, but it must have data he's copied into various articles at least 5 times. Check out Adolescent sexuality in the United States, Adolescent sexuality in Britain, Adolescent sexuality in India. I don't mean to gang up on you Illuminato. It's just that your actions are irresponsible, uncivil, and dishonest at best. (And that's being pretty generous as it is). Please reconsider your edits to wikipedia before you get engaged in another edit war and are banned. Nateland 04:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality in the United States
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Iamcuriousblue 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See talk
Please see the talk page on adolescence for my explanation of an edit I made to the section on adolescent sexuality. Seeing as you have been insistent on keeping those quotations I am asking you for clarification on what those quotes mean by what they say and to clarify those quotes. See the talk page for more details. Nateland 03:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR notice
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Nateland 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR notice
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Nateland 02:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning
You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- Nateland 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The redirect.
Illuminato, while the merge might have failed. Support for a redirect seems fairly high.

Also, tell what value your article adds to the topic of adolescent sexuality that

A. doesn't have disputed material that was removed in the rewrite I implemented a while ago. B. cannot be covered within the scope of adolescent sexuality itself. C. makes your article long enough to warrant its own article (you've argued on this point before) while not containing disputed material and/or not being able to be covered.

Answer me this satisfactorily and I'll leave the article be. Nateland 18:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. -- Nateland 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Page move
Hello, I just moved the page you created at Older discussion to User_Talk:Illuminato/Older discussion, because it looked like you meant to archive it. When you're creating a user subpage, make sure you remember to add a slash at the beginning of the link: /Older discussion, for example. Otherwise, the link will take you to the main namespace and create an actual article. I think I've fixed the link above, so it should work now. Cheers! Hersfold (talk/work) 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR violation
It's not nonsense. You violated the 3RR rule. Maybe the third template i used was the wrong one. My bad, I apologize, but I have EVERY RIGHT to report you for violations. And visa versa. Nateland 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A way to stop the debate over adolescent sexuality. (Sorta)
See Talk:adolescent sexuality for information on the proposal. It would create a branch off article containing solely views on the subject and hopefully get rid of the POV currently in the articles which are supposed to say what adolescent sexuality is. Not is it good or bad. In my opinion I say let the POV wars take place in an article ABOUT POV. not elsewhere. Tell us what you think at the above link. Nateland 02:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Article ownership
Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.

Insertions into quotes & omissions
Illuminato, it is perfectly legitimate to insert and omit text from quotes. Paul foord 07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * to insert the added material is bracketed
 * to omit - use ...

MedCab case
Hi! I'll be taking over your MedCab case. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page! mcr616 Speak! 23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be checking out the evidence and I should have a response for you by tomorrow. mcr616 Speak! 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the tags on the article. Thank you! mcr616 Speak! 15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would also be great if you returned to mediation. I'd like to see all the opinions represented. mcr616 Speak!

AS in US
Thanks for correcting the spelling/grammar mistake. I am notoriously bad with these, even in my native language... But It was not a accident that I removed some material. I provided some rationales for my edit in the Talk page, for your enjoyment :-) Shmget 11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

^_^


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. mcr616 Speak! 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Articles
Hi, the GA-grade for articles is for articles that have passed a Good Article review which means they pass the Good Article criteria. Your upgrade of Marilyn Monroe from B-class to GA-class (see here) was therefore out of process. I have downgraded the article back to B-class, as it does not comply with the criteria (e.g. fair use rationales for pictures). Er rab ee 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AS in US
Hi, If you are willing to keep separate the claim an opinion about 'psychological effect' from the rest of the article and not mix and match data point that do not support it (like the AAP reference), this would help reach a acceptable point for me. There are Facts supported by hard and verifiable data. Unfortunately psychology is not a subject very amenable to this kind of data. I suspect that in a pshycology section some might be encline to organized it to present the variety of view point.. I will leave that to other. I only care about the separation of fact from opinion and especially when the composition seems to hint that one support the other - when it is not the case.

As for the beginning of the article: the menarche age has not significantly changed in more than 40 years... that is 2 generations already. furthermore "It appears, however, that between the 1930s and the 1960s in the United States, CV was 9–10% and did not change any longer" so even going back to the 30s, still doesn't support the claim... and in any case it certainly doesn't support he 'conclusion' about allege maturity. Furthermore the average age of first sexual intercourse is not correlated to the variation in menarche age, making that metric irrelevant to the discussion. You are welcome to remove both sentence entirely if you want. I only added the one before to provide hard data against he opinion that followed. Shmget 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-17 Adolescent sexual behavior
User:Seventhofnine has requested a WP:MEDCAB moderation for the page Adolescent sexual behavior and named you as one of the involved parties. Please provide a statement if you wish to participate. Please remember to be civil and to assume good faith. Thanks!--Cerejota 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

on Template:Tea
Hello! I want to make (and use ) Template:Tea like Template:Coffee. But Template:Tea already exists. So I want to move Template:Tea to Template:A_nice_cup_of_tea_and_a_sit_down (or other name). I find you have used this template. So please come to Template talk:Tea and discuss my request. Thank you. Penpen0216 06:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Primal Scream 5.JPG
Can you please verify whether or not you have a release from both students in this photograph to release their picture? It would appear that someone doesn't want it in the Primal Scream article and we've received a complaint at OTRS from someone claiming to be one of the students. Since there is no mention of a model release on the image description page, I have deleted it for the time being, however, I will be happy to restore it if you can show you have permission. Thanks! Shell babelfish 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the lack of response; I missed your message among others I got around the same time ( I was probably out celebrating the New Year ;) ). In any case, the crux of the situation is that while the people in the photograph may have had little expectation of privacy in your opinion, they were apparently under the impression that the photographs were for private use and not to be published. Just as we are careful of biographies of living people, we need to be careful of images as well; as far as I can tell, these are private people who wouldn't be known outside their participation in one of the primal scream events. If you'd like to have someone else with OTRS access review the issue, you'll want to reference ticket 2007123110009273.  Thanks. Shell babelfish 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

adolescent sexuality
I only have a moment to comment, sorry. The concept of abstinence is relatively new within history. Clearly it is one currently advocated by the Catholic church, but only for three or four hundred years, not prior to that in Christianity. Also, there are a wide variety of Christian churches, and most of them currently do not use the bible to advocate sexual abstinence. The most conservative ones do advocate it, but as mostly fundamentalist churches, since they have no bible reference for that, they do not advocate that. The middle of ther line and liberal churches don't advocate abstinence at all -- their focus is on the bible, not on controlling the morality of others. Throughout history, even in the puritan and victorian era, sex before marriage was not only common, it was culturally and religiously acceptable. In the most recent hundred years the behavior of Christians does not, and has not followed thsat "value". More than 50% of high school students lose their virginity before age 17 (without being married) (and 90% have by age 21). That number is rising as time goes by, not declining. That activity was true of your generation, your parents generation, and your childrens generation. Now, I don't expect to change your opinion, but thought I would try to explain that there are other perspectives based on history and the facts than your own. Clearly sexual chastity and abstinence are not "Christian" values, but are values that some Christians advocate. Two very different things. You may prefer to advocate sexual chastity and abstinence. There are people other than yourselves that agree with you. That's fine, more power to you. But, if you want to proclaim that your preference is a "Christian Value" then you are just incorrect. You were nice enough to provide citations to indicate that Catholocism (currently) advocates those values. The Catholic Church is hardly authoritative over Christianity, and obviously not influential amongst most Christians. Your cite proves the statement that "Some Christians advocate abstinence". You will need to provide more references to prove your stated theory "Abstinence is a Christian Value". I think that unlikely since most Christians in word and deed, do not believe in abstinence. Atom (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Sexual minority youth, thanks, its nice to agree on something with you. Atom (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)