User talk:Jmh123/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Redwolf24 9 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Welcome
Just wanted to say that I'm so pleased to see that you've decided to stick around. As silly and frustrating as the edit war over Clay Aiken was, if it means that Wikipedia has gained a new and interested editor then I'll judge it worthwhile. Enjoy yourself and if I can ever be of any help please let me know. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -Jmh123 18:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you keeping an eye on the Clay page. I know we didn't always see eye to eye over there but you were always reasonable and I'm glad we were able to work it out in the end. --Wilykit 21:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hope to see you at a concert this summer! -Jmh123 23:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Aiken
I tend to agree, and am glad to hear that you are going to the source in trying to prevent some of the run-by fruitings. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 01:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure that it's not reasonable to assume purposeful vandalism sat this point. Maybe this lady was an innocent, but I doubt she's tried to delete the paragraph lately -- at least not since the admonition was added to the text in comment blocks.  I doubt very much that after adding the commented phrase saying "please don't delete the following paragraph," people who are deleting it are just hapless newbies. My edit summary was a simple expression of frustration. I do understand what you're saying, though. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 02:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mirrors and forks
Hi, I noticed that you have recently contributed in the Mirrors and forks section of Wikipedia. If you planning on helping us eliminate those copyright violators, let me know. I'm currently looking for more people to contribute there. It's rather inactive there. Thanks. -- WB 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * About the American Idol mirror, I think you should start contacting the ISP/host for it. -- WB 01:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi,WB, thanks for these notes. Should I not send him a letter beforehand stating that this is my next step? If we do take this to that level, I will need help. I'm just following the steps provided on these pages, and haven't done anything like this before. I do think the young man will yield to further pressure. He has made some attempt to correct things, and I think he will respond to continued reminders with specifics about what more is needed for his sites to be in compliance. Chances are with the American Idol season just beginning, he wants to milk the connection without doing a whole lot of extra work right when the hits are starting to come in. He has other irons in the fire, and is trying to make a on-line news database of sorts. Everything is in the hands of "interns" or "staff", he keeps saying. But I'd take 50 of him over some of the crap that's out there right now in the way of "juiceenews" so I'm inclined to cut him some slack and not rush him too much. Also, this isn't something I can put a lot of time into during the week, but I will check his sites this weekend and see if he's made further progress.

If this process goes well, I might be persuaded to get involved in another case. :) Any advice is more than welcome. -Jmh123 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I contacted various ISPs to shut down the IPs since the admins are not reacting for a while. If we move to that stage, it gets a bit complicated because we need to file a formal DMCA complaint to the ISPs themselves. As much I would like to help out Wiki, I cannot do that by myself, so I asked Jimbo Wales for help. As for the American Idol thing. Many admins have told me that they will remove them within a week, but never did. The problem with this is that, even if we move on to the ISPs, as noted above, DMCA is the only way. -- WB 00:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - see Mirrors and Forks for update. Frustrating. Thanks for the template!! -Jmh123 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Clay Aiken & Religious affiliation
Hi, I gather that you are new. When I deleted the category "Baptists" from Clay Aiken (multiple times as you put it in multiple times), it is because there is no evidence from the article or any of the citations of sources for that claim. Wikipedia strives for verifiability. Therefor, information which is known to an editor cannot just be added without citing the sources so that it may be checked. I understand that there are lots of "rumors" about Clay Aiken, but rumors aren't facts and those "rumors" tend to get deleted when someone wants to add them to his article. Hope you understand and if you'd like to edit Clay's article and add the sourcing for the religious affiliation claimed, that's what it's there for. Carlossuarez46 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the user with two IP addresses, my guess is that he normally uses one, but was temporarily using another. In order to minimize confusion he tries to sign using just one IP, even if it isn't the one he is currently using. If so, I don't think there's an intent to deceive. -Will Beback 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is some discussion on Will's talk page. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Taoism
I'd not really looked at this before; I can see room for improvement, but on the whole it doesn't seem too bad to me. Your first point is reasonable &mdash; why not just edit it? The point about superstition seems to me to be couched in NPoV terms, though. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks fine; if it's good enough for the article... --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I've filed a request for arbitration here. If it is accepted by the admins you can present your side of the dispute there. - mixvio 01:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jmh. To your question, no, you're under no obligation to stop working toward a compromise on the issues at hand. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 21:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. To answer your questions 1 and 2: I can't say if they're personal attacks per se without specifics, but they sound like clear-cut incivility nonetheless. To answer your third question, if this is an ongoing persistent problem, you should consider filing an arbitration request. Obviously, I'm not familiar with your situation, but some things to consider first: review WP:DR and ensure that you have taken all of the steps before arbitration, or demonstrate that they would not be fruitful; arbitration is a venue for resolving conduct problems, not content ones, content disputes should be solved through consensus of editors and mediation, etc., arbcom is there just to look at misconduct like incivility and edit warring. If you do feel like arbitration is necessary, I suggest that you enter a new request titled "Mixvio" and be sure that you frame it as a conduct problem. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your message
Jmh123, thanks for the kind comment. : ) I'm going to keep an eye on Chechypaw. I agree that it is better for someone not involved in a content dispute to do such reverts. I'm not sure what happened with the edits on Mixvio talk page? Looks like an editing mistake. Mixvio will probably notice something is different and check the history. He may fix it or leave it the way it is. PAW is challenging. It helps that I have a lot of other interests that I write about regularly. FloNight   talk  16:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just piping up with my own thanks for your message. We haven't always seen eye to eye on this Aiken mess, but regardless I'm glad to see that you decided to stick around; Wikipedia's better for it. If you see any other shenanigans related to this or anything else feel free to drop me a note. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Copied from my user page.
 * I'm staying away from Sex scandal--I regret getting involved this morning. Just FYI, most of the sources Rabinid cites did not mention JP by name, or make any sort of specific reference other than to "gossip".  I believe the only one on his list that does use JP's name is the NY Post Page Six (enough said).  Thanks again and again.  -Jmh123 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good plan. One down 1,000,000 + articles to go. : ) You stated your opinion. Getting many editors to give an opinions is better than a few people debating the same points over and over again. Later on if you think of something else important to add, you can come back. FloNight   talk  19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR
It is only a violation, if he reverts a 4th time Agathoclea 10:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review
We may not have heard the last of this as Otto4711 has asked for a deletion review. - Maria202 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
Keep up the good work, SqueakBox 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Source
I see you have removed wellsourced text, the source and text meets the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. Please restore the text and source. Nandaba Naota 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please continue this discussion on the talk page for that entry, where it belongs. -Jmh123 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to previous message
Hey again,
 * First of all I wanted to apologize if my comments on the Child sexual abuse talk page came across as bickering. Secondly, I'd like to make clear that I do not expect you or any of the editors to be responsible for all articles on Wikipedia.  The only reason I mentioned the pedophilia article was to show you that the claims I were making were not unheard of, and have been researched to a certain degree.

Most importantly, I would just like to make clear I did not mean to come across as arrogant, and I apologize if I appeared that way. I understand how easily Wikipedians can get upset when newbies start trying to make drastic changes out of no where. Viper2k6 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Musashimaru
I thought I would shift this over to your talk page.


 * Sorry. Trying to be lighthearted. I was there for Musashimaru's promotion, and, actually, I saw his retirement ceremony live at the kokugikan.

Anyways, thanks for your help in sourcing the Akebono article. It is just too important to be left blank. That was pretty cool that three people were able to just come together and do that. wikipedia power, i guess. XinJeisan 21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject:Sumo
I just set up a proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals for a Sumo WikiProject. Please sign up. It is at 1.116. I don't know how to link directly to there! XinJeisan 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I hope you decide to join up XinJeisan 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Note taken
Hello again, thanks for giving me a heads up when proposing new content ... that is kinda a lot of citations to skim through. Next time I'll give specific sources and outline the info that I feel is important. Viper2k6 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Lolicon?
No, you misunderstand. For Wikipe-tan to be "a lolicon" would mean that she had a sexual interest in girls under the age of consent. Read the article, there are a couple different meanings for the word. I don't think describing it as "a lolicon image of Wikipe-tan" makes much sense either, since at most it's an ecchi image. --tjstrf talk 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the current caption, personally. --tjstrf talk 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much for stepping in at Talk:Pro-pedophile activism. I really had no idea what I had gotten into. I was very surprised by Squeakbox and DPeterson's accusations of "trolling" and such. I will remember this in the future and do a better job at educating myself of an article's history before commenting, for my own sake.

I do think that it would have been better if one of them had said, "you know what, I haven't seen you here before, so you probably don't know this, but there is a long history of dispute here, and we actually have many good reasons for wanting this template here. Sometime in the next few days I will put together a short list of the main problems, so people, like you, who are new and who see the template will understand that there is a history here." Anyway, I really appreciate you sticking up for me. I am glad that you pointed out that I am not associated with the problematic group in question. I feel very grateful, thank you. Joie de Vivre 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to do it. I hope I haven't pissed them off, 'cause they are good guys.  Like I said, when the trolls come a'calling, they're great to have around.  I completely agree that they could've been more diplomatic with you.  I'm fairly new, so haven't been subjected to as much, but I can see how one could get pretty weary and defensive.  There was a time when pedophiles pretty much controlled all the pertinent pages and it was a struggle just to get any little NPOV statement in. Anyway, I'm really glad you are around to help out. -Jmh123 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you can AGF, but Squeakbox has been so vile and caustic that they have destroyed that basic confidence. I find their actions to be enormously hypocritical: They got hugely pissed off for me moving a comment of theirs (which I did to be helpful), then they turned around and edited a comment of mine while spitting insults.  Then they showed up on MY talk page to pester me further, after I had left them alone, threatening me and accusing me of trolling.  What can I do?  I don't like being accused of things I did not do, and I don't like being threatened.  All I want is for this creative character to leave me alone.  Joie de Vivre 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. -- I have removed your most recent note from my Talk page to limit the number of roads here. Please excuse, I hope you understand.  Joie de Vivre


 * I do sympathize completely. I will do what I can to mitigate.  We need you.  I'm not sorry to have missed the latest troll fun today, but I'm happy to see that the remedies are coming really fast these days.  -Jmh123 07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind support. It is truly appreciated.  :)  I look forward to editing with you. Joie de Vivre 23:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

csa
hello. if possible, please comment on the issue being "discussed" at child sexual abuse. i have presented evidence that dpeterson's reasoning is flawed and he has ignored my arguments. an evaluation from someone who seems to be actually interested in editing constuctively would be cool. ~kinda]] 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons afd
The lolicon debate has been reopened, I have put a note to said effect at AN/I, SqueakBox 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:IDONTLIKEIT
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a counter for arguments where no reason is given except that you don't personally like something, despite there being apparent benefits to it.

User:A - This change will make improvements in the following 3 ways, X, Y, and Z! We should do this! User:B - No, I think it sucks.

Similarly, WP:ILIKEIT is for "arguments" like this, where rather than saying something is wrong because it violates policy you just say that you personally dislike it.

User:A - This article violates the following 3 policies and should be deleted! User:B - But it's cool!

In the case you are speaking of, the reason for using the new image over the old one, and the reason the new image existed in the first place, was that it was an aesthetic improvement. In other words, it looked better while presenting the same content.

While looking better obviously would not be a reason to do something if it violated policies, when choosing between two things that are both of equal standing in other ways, one looking better is a valid reason.

So in other words, my comment towards Tony was that he had cited no reason for thinking the image was inappropriate, simply said that he thought it was.

Finally, I removed the conversation dump from my talk page. I'm not sure what that was there for. If you were trying to remind me of what I said, it's normal to use diff links if you want to discuss a specific change a user made, not paste in the entire conversation. --tjstrf talk 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Herostratus's comment didn't say a thing about legal concerns, simply that he didn't think Wikipedia should be associated with "kiddy cheesecake photos", whatever those are, and that he planned on deleting the image constantly until it stuck or he got desysopped, all without citing any policy to support his view. Everything else aside, that particular comment made him lose an enormous amount of respect with me, an admin should know better than threatening to wheel war no matter what they think of the argument's subject. --tjstrf talk 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology

 * The comment on the talk page for Child sexual abuse was directed toward Kind0 not you...I am sorry if you thought my comment was directed to you...it was not. I apologize. DPeterson talk 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks very much for your note on my talk page. If you and some of the others need a hand in getting consensus around rewrites, let me know. It would be a very good thing to have well-written and -sourced articles on child abuse topics. I do wonder, however; can such articles, once completed, be guarded in any way from the vandalism that will inevitably result? I do not know what options may exist in this situation. If such protections do exist, the work is certainly valuable and worth every effort. Best, ZeroZ 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft - CA
OK. I killed the catagories, otherwise they will pick up my sub page. Maria202 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've noticed. Looks like respect has become a serious matter. 'Bout time. ETA: Did you see this? - Maria202 02:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your ideas for sectioning. The only thing about PETA is he still refers to it occasionally and some may be curious as to why. I do think it can be cut down a lot though.  The last time was on Kimmel when he talked about riding the donkey in Afghanistan.  - Maria202 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Child Sexual Abuse article
First off, I'd like to again apologize if I've upset you or acted in a way that was rude. That was not my intention... I am wondering if it is nearing time to file an RfC regarding editor 00a00a0aa ? Regards DPeterson talk 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

scholars
Maybe you could ask David Finkelhor. He is definitely the most significant child sexual abuse researcher, and since he has an agenda (contra to that of pro-pedophile activists) he might be motivated to contribute to a wikipedia article on this. He has written criticisms of studies used by pro-pedophile activists before. His email is david.finkelhor@unh.edu ~kinda]] 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse
I did a revert of Monotonehell and Slakr, but retained your edits adding references to the Effects section. Cheers, ZeroZ 08:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Received your note; no worries. I would have left untouched Slakr's formatting, such as the bolding of "child sexual abuse," if I could have done so efficiently while reverting the more substantive changes. -ZeroZ 09:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

6 months
Regarding your edit, I wonder if you would take another look. The language of criterion A says:

"A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)"

I believe the 6-month period applies to "behaviors" as well; otherwise there would be a conjuction and no comma between "sexually arousing fantasies" and "sexual urges", above. It would look like this: ''Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies or sexual urges, or behaviors ... ''

But the language places all three ("fantasies, urges, or behaviors") equally under the qualification "over a period of at least 6 months". I also asked a psychiatrist colleague, who agrees, but I would prefer if you checked for yourself. Cheers, ZeroZ 09:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and help please (Copied from here)
Congratulations on becoming an admin!

Could you please look at the Rosie O'Donnell entry? I found that an untruth had been inserted there regarding Clay Aiken ("he has never said if he was gay or not"), so I rephrased and included a source, Rolling Stone. I included a quote from the Rolling Stone interview in the edit notes ("...either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those...."), but my change was removed today and replaced with the old statement. What he said on GMA & Larry King was that he was tired of answering because people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway, but that point went right over most people's heads. Normally reliable sources did report at that time that "he has never said if he was gay or not," but those reliable sources were incorrect. I could list multiple sources for statements that he has made in the past that he is not gay, but it's really beside the point to this section in O'Donnell to get into all that. Hope you can help. Thanks. -Jmh123 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your post, Aiken steadfastly refuses to discuss his sexuality these days,[43] as earlier statements about his orientation[44] have been ignored. replaced the post, Aiken steadfastly refuses to discuss his sexuality and has never stated if he were homosexual or not. I was unable to find any mention of sexuality or the pharse ("...either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those....") in Hedegaard,Erik. (July 10, 2003) Rolling Stone. New Kid on the Block. Issue 926, p40-44. If you have a reliable source for a statement that he has made in the past that he is not gay, then it is not true that "has never stated if he were homosexual or not" and reason enough to remove/replace that from the O'Donnell article. Although not required, it would help other contributors verify your point if that reliable source were accessible over the Internet. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment. WP:BLP addresses sexual preferences by stating, The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Here, public figure Clay's sexual preferences appear relevant to O'Donnell's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources (O'Donnell's seems to have made them relevant). I think if you were to seek GA status for the O'Donnell article, the reviewer may find that too much text in that article has been devoted to the Kelly Ripa / Clay Aiken for the article to comply with WP:NPOV. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(no indent for better format of response) Thanks. Note that at the end of page 2 of the Rolling Stone link it states, (Excerpted from RS 926, July 10, 2003). This excerpt is not the full article. Nonetheless, Rolling Stone is a reliable source and is freely available in libraries and in full text online archives. The full context is: "Some people, for example, seem to think that because he is slender, has long, fluttering eyelashes, and currently doesn't have a girlfriend, he must be gay. Indeed, after Aiken somewhat awkwardly tossed the first pitch at a Durham Bulls minor-league baseball game, dreadful comic Jimmy Kimmel felt called upon to tell his talk show's audience, "But that's OK, folks, because Clay's a catcher, not a pitcher." Even so, this kind of stuff seems to amuse Aiken more than it upsets him.

"One thing I've found of people in the public eye," Aiken says, "either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me. They're like, What are you, then?' I'm sure it has to do with being raised by women. I wouldn't want somebody gawking at my mom and grabbing her butt and catcalling at her, trying to hook up with her at a bar. I'm not saying I'm not going to look. Hello! But you know what I mean?"

Another reference, also not available on line, is the Prime Time Live interview with Diane Sawyer, 10/09/03, Diane: In Rolling Stone he hinted he's a virgin and denied what's asked him over and over again. Is he gay? He says no.... "I think it's high time there's somebody who represents people who aren't gay, but doesn't sleep around with everybody...you know. If I'm supposed to carry the banner for all the nerds in the world I'm fine with that, too, so...." There are other sources from that time period (Star, J-14), none on line, which seem to be derivative of one of these two sources, as well as several interviews in 2004 during the Independent Tour promotion, all in "for pay only" newspaper archives.

I did not ask that mention of controversy over Aiken's orientation be removed, only the incorrect statement that "he has never stated whether he is homosexual or not." The link to the GMA interview, cited as a source for this statement actually says the opposite, "Aiken said he protested similar rumors a few years ago because he was naive. 'I walked out of that 'American Idol' door after being sequestered in a house for 16 weeks into the real world,' he said. '[The rumor] surprised me I guess a little bit. … It's, apparently, fascinating to everyone.' " It's not online anymore either, by the way, but You can read it here. -Jmh123 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I revised the O'Donnell article. You might want to review how I formatted the footnotes to provide supporting evidence of what is asserted in the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell article re: Clay Aiken's sexuality
Hi, not sure why any reference to Clay Aiken's sexuality need to be expunged when the article clearly stated his denial of talking about it and no proof has been presented showing evidence of him being gay. And if it did? Who cares? The section is about perceived homophobia which can happen to strait people who are simply perceived as being gay whether the person making that judgment is correct or not isn't the point. I've further softened the language to read "Although some have speculated or joked that Aiken is gay[44] he has steadfastly refused to discuss his sexuality stating "What I do in my private life is nobody's business anymore."[45]" I hope this further revision is acceptable. Benjiboi 06:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(moved from my page)
 * PS. I read your note and worked on this before going to the O'Donnell article. You didn't mention the other additions you made.  If you're going to add the "dogged by rumors" phrase, why do you need to then say there's been speculation, with three more references?  Kelly and Rosie had the big fuss; he was caught in the middle.  I think you're putting undue weight on this. -Jmh123 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in case you once again revert my changes, two of your citations are unacceptable. Page Six is a gossip column, and therefore not a reliable source, the Blade article is sourced to Page Six, and is therefore also unreliable, (please see Biographies_of_living_persons) and the Advocate link is dead, so I can't check it.  At any rate, as I said, the point is made with your "dogged by rumors" citation.  I don't see any need to belabor it.  -Jmh123 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, my apologies as after I made my initial note to you I started to research the various links provided in the Kelly Ripa and Aiken articles and found them to be less than stellar, that's when I found the "dogged by rumors" quote which I think is what the section needed most just a ref. that some had questioned his sexuality. I personally don't like to delete other editors research references but when I initially read the Rolling Stone ref. it was vague and didn't seem to address the question at hand. Thank you for your time on this. Benjiboi 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Well that is sad. I do believe that in such a situation a locked lack of consensus is not a reason to do nothing, that would have been fine if there had been only opposition to the move but givenn some people wanted it and others didnt isnt a reason to stay with those who didnt want the move. Far from harming the project I think merging articles helps make for a better project in almost all cases (certainly not just paedophilia cases) and do believe that having the 3 articles in one place will help improve all 3 articles. I would also say that Jim Burton's creation of the anti pedophile activism article was POV based and much more harmful to the project than the recent merge but was att he root of it. Anyway, best wishes, SqueakBox 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As an involved party, you may be interested in this discussion
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Thanks.--Flamgirlant 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please consult the article on Tory Mason
A compelling argument has been made to re-visit the article on Tory Mason for the purposes of deletion. The argument is listed on the talk page there, under Editing and prod tag rationale. The last time the article was up for AfD, back in January, it was decided to keep it, with twelve saying delete and five saying keep -- hardly a consensus and seemingly irregular. The article is stuffed with irrelevancy and is little more than a string of citations of porn websites, all cited to make the subject look notable. The actor simply has done nothing noteworthy. A prod tag has been restored after being deleted by an editor; a challenge has been issued to that editor and any dissenting editors to keep the prod tag in place and allow the deletion process to proceed again. Please consider re-nominating the article yourself for AfD (as I am unable to) should the editors decline the challenge. I don't think the article will survive with the argument listed there, assuming the delete process is allowed to run its course. Any assistance you can render will be appreciated. Thank you. 72.76.78.30 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you don't have a page, I'll respond here. I checked his entry, and it's pretty lousy.  Then I randomly checked through the list of gay porn stars, and all the ones I pulled were all unsourced and unnotable.  Personally, I don't think any of them belong in Wikipedia, but I'm not up for submitting them all for deletion.  Not sure what to do.  I'll give it some thought. -Jmh123 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. [First, I must correct myself with the stats I gave re the January AfD fiasco: there were seven who spoke for delete, not twelve -- less than half in favor of keep, but it was kept.] Yes, I've had the same experience with articles of this type.  Not only are they unsourced and not notable, but many are filled with original research or irrelevant nonsense that simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article.  If you take away the content that violates the rules, you're not left with much else.  So yes, they don't belong here.  Several have been removed.  There is what I've described as a cabal of editors who seem bent on maintaining any kind of article on porn actors, no matter how mediocre.  I ask you to please consider submitting this article for deletion as I believe a sufficient body of evidence has been recorded to bring about a decision of delete.  Thanks again! 72.76.93.198 01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I must correct myself yet again. I was right the first time, there were twelve who voted in favor of deleting this article back at the Dec/Jan fiasco, and only five who voted in favor of keep.  As an "outsider" it's puzzling to me that the majority does not carry -- in this case the minority won with a keep.  I'm not sure that any of this matters, as the article is up again for speedy delete.  Thank you.  72.68.118.8 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for what?
What you are doing is blatant censorship. I have not reverted it three times in 24hrs. You are trying to erase a record of the discussion, what is this Nineteen Eighty-Four ???? WacoJacko 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, correct me if I am wrong but the text in question was deleted, not archived right?? If it was actually archived I could agree with that. However, I can find it none of the archives. WacoJacko 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, however I still don't see it under general archive 2. Thanks WacoJacko 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see everything that is in general archive 2, but not the text discussion in question. WacoJacko 09:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it....I have no problem with it being archived. WacoJacko 09:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem WacoJacko 10:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! WacoJacko 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Youngman
"Individual is not notable, article is unsourced" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. I have removed your tag. Picaroon (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend  . Picaroon (Talk) 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Sorry, I meant to leave you a note telling you to see the talk page. I felt like we needed to discuss what to do with that section you removed before simply deleting it. Sorry for the confusion. Mike D78 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)