User talk:PetraSchelm/Archives/2008/May

Mayo Clinic Ref in Child Pornography
Would you be able to dig that one up? John Nevard (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I have to say, with a lot of the articles I keep up on the only way to keep track is to look at the entire block of edits since mine or a trusted editor. John Nevard (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. You seem to be doing a very good job of it. It's amazing what a solid stance on this rather important resource can do, when the tide finally turns on an article. John Nevard (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good will
Re. Virgin Killer, I am 100% opposed to your point of view. However, I salute your zeal, and extend the hand of friendship. Productive debate. great stuff.--  Chzz  ►  02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

formatting ...
Hi -- the cause of the display problem in your recent talkpage note is that there is a blank space at the beginning of the line. That causes the formatting not to wrap properly and is usually used for stuff like computer code display examples. When you remove the blank space, the formatting will go back to normal. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, tks. I am webtard. :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nudity and children
I have reverted your edit to Nudity and children. Please don't remove content without prior discussion and consensus. Corvus cornix talk  23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of consensus for that redirect and plenty of prior discussion, in the form of an AfD. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits to Pro-pedophile activism
You have been cautioned many times not to introduce significant controversial edits to contentious articles without seeking and gaining consensus first. Since unprotection of "Pro-pedophile activism," you have chosen to disregard this advice, and have unilaterally altered almost the entire piece, in some places beyond recognition. In my opinion, this was a very disrespectful thing to do, as it diminishes the countless hours of work and effort many editors contributed to make the article what it recently was. There is no excuse for altering the text in the way you did, considering that unprotection was carried out on the assumption that editors would discuss controversial changes first and foremost, and that gradual editing would be the approach to be taken. After your edits, there is no easy or accessible way to address incremental changes carried out by you, since you have altered so much information and so many sections that it is very difficult to assess or undo any particular edit. This was not being bold, but instead taking unilateral action in a very disrespectful manner. For this conduct, you have been mentioned in a related section on east718's Talk Page. When I have more time, I'll see if there's any way to actually deal with the difficult situation you have placed all the contributing editors of this article. Please be more conscientious of others in the future. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Every single change was discussed on the talkpage--some of the discussion has been posted for weeks. I would say I greatly improved the article, and that the improvements were long needed. There is no excuse for altering the text in the way you did borders on personal attack and is definitely assuming bad faith. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. A personal attack is one that describes the person rather than the edits. This was a pretty non-personal attack. You say you greatly improved the article :) I think most people would say that about their own edits. The question is, does everyone else agree with you? It appears not, and looking at the history of that article, I'd say this was very excessive and questionable editing, considering the fact that it was just unprotected. This is the wrong way to edit following unprotection.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, of the two people who edit that article, one agrees with me and one doesn't. That's Wikipedia for you. Meanwhile, since you don't edit that article and were involved in a dumb dispute with me earlier tonight about merging nudity and children into nudity which you lost, be on notice that I will delete your further comments. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to assume good faith when an editor disregards the conditions upon which unprotection has been carried out in a contentious article, and when he or she knows that his or her conduct is almost guaranteed to start an edit war or at least cause major discontent for other editors. This said, I'm choosing not to revert to the page that was under protection because some of your edits may be valid (but it's hard to tell which, considering that you revamped pretty much the entire article) and another editor contributed constructive non-controversial changes. Thus, please view my commentary in the light of your own conduct. Besides, this was an informative observation and critique of your recent editing behavior, and in no way a personal attack. Sorry if you regard it as one, but critiques are indeed useful for improving editing skills and reigning in disruption on Wikipedia. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you don't like the changes for pov reasons--but that article seriously needed to be revamped, and all the changes were discussed. I notice you didn't reply much to posted discussion. Stonewalling? -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please pray tell what POV reasons those would be. As for your stonewalling insinuation, please refer to my latest comment on east718's Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent work



 * Love lasts forever I think sums it up for me. Keep going. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PPA page title
Hi PetraSchelm - I thought you might be interested in posting a comment about this suggestion  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Petra, thank you so much for your support during my little "melt-down". I think we both have common intentions - objective information on Wikipedia, as free of bias as possible. Best regards, Googie man (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Eli Langer
Did a bunch of work on this. Think it's at the point where we can drop the tags. Mattnad (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Carnival
Its the grand carnival here today so I am off out to have some fun, please keep your good eyes peeled. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have fun! I'll be on the job off and on till later tonight. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lambton
Thanks for what you said on my talk page, but I put Lambton's edit back in. What gives with him? Would you mind putting in a word to User:Gwernol so he'll know I'm not insane, and that Lambton won't leave me alone? Thanks!! Googie man (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, based on my experience with Lambton, he is only posting on your talkpage in the hopes of upsetting you. Just ignore him; others are watching your talkpage and will revert him for you. If necessary, I will mention o Gwernol that after she advised disengagement, Jovin continually bothered you. No worries and happy editing. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do mention this to Gwernol, I would appreciate the support. Thanks, Googie man (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lambton/Googie Man
I have no intention of involving myself further in that particular mess. Googie man has made it quite plain that he is unable to act in a civil and constructive manner. He asked for my advice, when I gave it to him I was met with a barrage of threats and insults. So no, I will not be wading into that morass to help him. Gwernol 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can understand your feelings. Thnaks for reply.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the attempt. I think you may notice a trend - anyone who is respectful to me, is treated in kind. Anyone who doesn't, well, is also treated in kind, but I give it back harder. Just the way I am. Keep up the great work - again I appreciate your kind words of encouragement. Best, Googie man (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just shun/ignore/avoid Lambton and it will all soon be in the past. (He should be blocked any minute now for abusive sockpuppetry and all the rest of his disruption anyway, and then we will have a bit more peace). -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. I have tweaked it slightly, take a look. I take great pride in the work I do in the pedophile articles. I saw Jovin complaining on AN about my addition re the CSA being compounded millions of times in CP, which I found a bit odd as I was basing my millions figure on the estimated number of people who have seen CP on the net (which runs into millions in the UK so I read on BBC News recently), CP is just worse than CSA because it compounds the trauma, and violates that privacy is a vital part of sexuality. So I think I want to try and focus my attention on CP as an article to develop and leave PPA to others. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
Please see this thread on AN/I that regards you.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Most Special of Barnstars

 * Thanks! I like the rainbow, especially. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)