User talk:Tlatosmd

Please give edit summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -Will Beback 21:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tlatosmd, thanks for your contributions to the Pedophile activism article. It's nice to have someone knowledgeable editing it. JayW 19:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hirschfeld
Do you have a cite on the coinage of "ephebophilia" by Hirschfeld? Dan B † Dan D 21:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, only copied it from the German entry on ephebophilia. However based on that cited date, I'd be pretty sure that it relates to his journal called Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Homosexualität ("Journal of Sexual Transitions, in pronounced consideration of homosexuality"). --TlatoSMD 20:49, 20 January 2007 (CEST)


 * I have heard quite a number of different unsourced origins for "ephebophilia." I'm no more confident that the German Wikipedia has it right than that we had it right before! Dan B † Dan D  04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

chronophilia
You would need a citation to call into question the scientific validity of DSM etcetera. Perhaps you should just add a see also section. Lotusduck 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC) IPCE is not a reviewed journal. As an organization it is only a reliable source on the IPCE. Lotusduck 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * IPCE is only the online re-publisher of the material. The source is Dr. Frits Bernard as he's published his data across Europe in a number of languages (English, Dutch, German), books, and scientific peer-reviewed journals (such as The Journal of Sex Research, no. 3, 1975) in 1975, 1979-1982, 1985, and 2002. The only problem about IPCE might be copyright issues. TlatoSMD 11:31, 20 March 2007 (CEST)

Les Amities
Hi "Georges is 17, while Alexandre is 10, and their relationship lasts for all of Georges's time in high-school until Georges is 20" Are you sure about this? I haven't watched the movie for a year or so, but I don't remember Georges being this old. He is certainly, as you say, older than in the book. Samll pooint - not sure you should use the American expression 'High School'. Tony 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * I'm going by the German dub released to theaters not before 1970 actually (not a frankophone here), where Georges's age is mentioned in the beginning by his father. The expression high school might be critizizable though, even though they explicitly use the German secular school equivalents Oberstufe ("high school") for Georges and Unterstufe ("lower grade" = classes/grades 5, 6, and 7) for Alexandre. You can also find Georges's age of 17 here on the site of Franco-German TV channel Arte that has recently broadcasted the film (see the sentence, George de Sarre ist 17 Jahre alt, als er zum ersten Mal von zu Hause fort in ein Jungeninternat geschickt wird. = "George[s] de Sarre is 17 years old when he first leaves home as his parents send him to a boarding school."). On a minuscule issue, I find it a better explanation than in the book as to why he responds reservedly to the homosexual affairs of his peers, at least this way it's more obvious why he does, which might be why Peyrefitte himself probably didn't object to the change when it came to the adaption. --TlatoSMD 02:21, 23 March 2007 (CEST)

Message from the IP 193.35.133.151
are you a nonce? -- 193.35.133.151, 13:36, 22 May 2007 (not self-identified, had to be identified by page history)


 * Going by my dictionary, you're asking me if I'm either an occasion or a homosexual? Sorry, statements of personal sexual interest result in deletion of user account on Wikipedia, as several instances regarding self-identifying homosexuals evidence. And no, I'm not offering, as this is not a dating service. --Tlatosmd 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Germany
When you present an argument on Wikipedia that you are loosing through weight of numbers, the best tactic is to side step the issue. If your argument was to be successful then an WP:ADF would need to be raised, and the chances are at the moment that you would not gain 75% consensus for deletion. But if a change of name could accomplish the same thing, then problem solved! But "while it would have to be re-written as a piece on the personal title" may be true, stating the obvious, when there are others who hold contrary views and need to be persuaded that a new name is in everyone's interests, does not help. FYI a nonce in UK slang is a child molester. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Aesir-Asura correspondence
That was not my comment. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I've corrected it now. --Tlatosmd 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob and Macca
There is no point being a Dylan fan if you insist on putting others down to make Dylan seem worthier. He wouldn't like it, y'know... --andreasegde 18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't make that casual remark as a particular Dylan fan, in fact I personally prefer each part of the Four-Headed Monster (as Mick Jagger used to call them) to Bob while not exactly despising him either. It just occurred to me that he's obviously started this recent trend of superstars in pop music suddenly getting into being radio hosts. --Tlatosmd 06:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Repressed memory, etc.
I agree that these pages look obviously "owned" by single-purpose POV editing accounts like User:Abuse truth (the username doesn't even try to hide it), but unfortunately I don't really have the time/energy to fight with them at the moment. Hopefully someone will, and thanks for pointing it out. --Delirium 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Critique of SqueakBox's Editing Practices
To tell you the truth, I'm actually kind of sad that you didn't quote me in your recent critique of SqueakBox's editing behavior on the Talk Page for the Adult-child sex article. Still, kudos for stepping up to point out some of the follies in this editor's editing practices. However, that Talk Page may not be the best place for this critique - you may want to move this particular discussion SqueakBox and you are having to a User Talk Page, either his or yours. ~ Homologeo 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that what you think it is? Anyway it is inappropriate on the talk page for adult-child sex. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for leaving you out User:Homologeo, actually I myself are so enraged at SqueakBox's ignorant as well as arrogant tactics that it's hard for me to think clearly. I'm also rather afraid that it's exactly these tactics of his why a one-on-one will only turn out even more unfortunate because he'd have even less adversaries to protect his victim, due to his general lack of rationality he'd probably even work to turn the very attempt of a one-on-one dispute itself into another user block or ban, that's why I'm trying to create an atmosphere that he might be taken down by collective effort. --Tlatosmd 07:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil even on your own talk page, calling me ignorant and arrogant is completely unacceptable. You go on to tall about my victims and lack of rationality. Unless you change your attitude it is hard to see how to work with you, if all you want to do is troll me go and do it somewhere else but not on wikipedia. Your final atrocious claim to want to take me down is way over the top. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While I personally disagree with much of SqueakBox's editing behavior, constructive criticism is a much better way to address it than statements such as the one above. I admire your reason-based approach within the critique on that Talk Page, but do not see a need to "take anyone down." I think we all can agree that the goal of Wikipedia is to create a healthy reading and editing atmosphere for as many users as possible. Towards this goal, it's completely acceptable to critique other editors on their editing style, but this should be done in a constructive manner and with the intention of positively improving their editing behavior. ~ Homologeo 07:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference between editing critique and trolling attack has a lot to do with civility, it does no good whatsoever to mouth off opinions about how whatever another editor is and means that the constructive contributions to debate of such an editor are much more likelyy to be discounted. I for instance now assume the alleged critique was trolling based on the above comment. Homologeo is right that we are none of us here to bring down another editor, such a spirit is very counter to what wikipedia is all about. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please do not make personal attacks, including comments like this. Personal attacks are disruptive, and may result in your editing privileges being blocked. In the future, it's best to avoid commenting on editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So what do we regard accusations of agendas, as has been done hundreds of times before by the person in question? --Tlatosmd 08:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Listen to me and put your agenda to one side when you come on this site? That would be a really good solution, IMO, and it is certainly what I do. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See what I mean? --Tlatosmd 08:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What? I am only asking you to do the same as I do, and for everyone on the pedophile articles to do the same. We are a collective project, that means we work in a good faith way to create neutral encyclopedia articles. We do not pack articles full of POV agenda pushers and then say that NPOV is secondary to some alleged consensus. NPOV is non-negotiable. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, SqueakBox, didn't you just accuse Tlatosmd of having a pro-pedophile agenda? ~ Homologeo 09:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That surely is the point. I am asking him not to bring that agenda to wikipedia. I don't bring any pro-cannabis agenda I may happen to have to those articles, I leave any possible agenda outside, and I am asking him to do the same. I don't have an agenda with pedophilia but am happy to work with those who do if they don't bring that agenda here but merely try to use this place to help educate the public about these issues in a neutral way. Thanks, SqueakBox 09:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I simply fail to see the pro-pedophile agenda of Tlatosmd you're referring to. It doesn't help to jump to conclusions about the intentions of other editors, especially considering what the supposed penalty for being an acknowledged pro-pedophile activist is on Wikipedia. Stating that someone is promoting such an agenda can detriment the other person's image. ~ Homologeo 09:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually wikipedia is incredibly tolerant of pro-pedophile activist views here. Thanks, SqueakBox 09:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Homologeo, thank you for agreeing with me that badmouthing people by accusing them to their face of personal agendas in such rude ways instead of dealing with the actual points they raise is not really civil, as well as agreeing that it's that what SqueakBox is doing. --Tlatosmd 09:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The only person who has been inexcusably rude tonight is yourself. You ahve been warned about it and it remains to be seen whether you will reform or not. Thanks, SqueakBox 09:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, everyone has now expressed his opinion of the others, so can we now all go back to editing the article at hand? I'm pretty sure we would make some decent headway, if only we stopped wasting time on such squabbles. I guess I can take this to mind myself, seeing as I have posted more edits on this dispute in the last several hours than directly in relation to any specific article. ~ Homologeo 09:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're famous
Please see this ANI thread. — xDanielx T/C 11:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hence the warning, please take it to heart if you wish to remain an editor here as conspiring to remove an editor is so far from wikipedia policies that you are out of line in suggesting it. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did I "conspire to remove an editor," or endorse such a thing? I just thought Tlatosmd had a right to know that you were requesting that administrative action be taken against him. — xDanielx T/C 20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was talking to Tlat not you, Daniel. if I wished to make such a comment to you I would not do so here. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay -- sorry for the misunderstanding. — xDanielx T/C 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your notification xDanielx. --Tlatosmd 12:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the thread there:


 * I admit that my phrasing has been misunderstandable due to my irate state back then. What I meant to be done to you could have been anything from an admin warning to a temporary block because people keep talking up against you so that you might refrain from your irritative forms of behavior.


 * Now that I've had a few hours to cool down, let me describe my, and other people's, problems with you further. Of those mentioned by User:XDanielx, I personally have the most problems with you "labelling virtually everyone who contested the neutrality of your behavior as a pro-pedophile advocacy activist and/or POV-pusher", "accusing several editors you didn't agree with, myself included, of being SPAs, trolls, sockpuppets or meatpuppets", "using derogatory terms like 'ridiculous and childish', 'idiot', twat, etc.", "neglecting to assume the assumption of good faith", and your general mocking to derogatory tone.


 * Whenever somebody critizizes you or complains about your irritative behavior, you yell that you're being "threatened" and in turn immediately threat people yourself with a likely block or ban to the person trying to tell you what you're doing. User:Will_Beback seemingly has been supporting you in these tactics more than just in my own case, which is obviously why a user has referred to your continued tactics of immediate threats, intimidations, and blocks as a "Krystallnacht". User:Strichmann and I have been maintaining that your two are always in the minority, no matter how many people you two accuse and subsequently ban as "sock puppets". Of those still around, User:Homologeo, User:HolokittyNX, User:Ssbohio, User:Digital_Emotion, me and User:XDanielx here have voiced continued severe frustration with your behavior User:SqueakBox, apart from any topics to talk about.


 * I've tried to think of an equivalent to the one of your behaviors most irritating for me. Do you feel it would be fun if in every single post, somebody would be yelling at you offensively that you'd be "probably making money and/or a career of the illegal status and infamitity of the topics of child-adult sexual interactions and desire for them because you're either a therapist, pharmacologist, politician or similar" and that therefore, nobody must listen to you and you must be hindered from editing? It's not only offensive and provocative what you're doing, it's also disruptive for any discussion you're in, and considering the Wikipedia policy of permabanning any certain self-identifying sexual deviant, as well as your own profession on your userpage that you endorse permabans of any PPA "activists", your constant accusations are far from being as harmless as the equivalent I've tried to give above. One might say that by any single "PPA" accusation you've made, you've therefore could've done far more harm than what I did when I expressed on my userpage that I feel you ought to be taken action against.


 * On top of it, how common is it to directly request administrative action from admins against editors without telling the people in question, publically yet behind the accused person's back? --Tlatosmd 13:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Tlatosmd. Unfortunately I think I must bow out; too disillusioned by my Wikipedia experience. I had hoped that I could make some useful contribution, but realize now that I was being naïve. I can spend countless hours (and I know that you have spent even more) attempting to bring some valuable material to the pages, but then Squeakbox, Pol64 and Photouploaded drop by, and in just a couple of minutes, they insult editors, revert the work they have done, and refuse to provide sources for their assertions (although, of course, they don't need to verify, because they are speaking "the truth"). Wikipedia does nothing to prevent this; I guess it will achieve the quality of output it deserves.

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for your contributions, from which I have been learning a great deal - your depth of knowledge on the subject is vast, and incredibly inspiring. I am now looking forward to following up on many of the references you have mentioned - in the relative peace of my own quiet research! Under different circumstances...

My best wishes, Strichmann (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:TROLL
I'd like to urge you not to feed the troll on the PPA talkpage. That rarely helps, and I don't see much good coming from that discussion. Martijn Hoekstra 16:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, okay, I'm sorry. I must admit I was quite irate that some people think they can do away with such an enormous amount of work by one single line of self-righteous morals. --Tlatosmd 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When I first saw that, my fingers tingled aswell. I had a brief, but interesting discussion with him on my, and his talkpage. Martijn Hoekstra 16:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Adult-child sex
You have a great work going at User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex. Would you take a look at this version of the article Adult-child sex? The version has been gradually chopped of to nothingness eventually. May be you would also like to have all the material and references of that version incorporated into your workpage version. BTW, will be it be alright if an outsider wants to collaborate? At least on the talk page of the workpage? I may be interested to volunteer. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Níð
Hey, I've replied to your question about moral turpitude on the article talk page. I'll go back and try to add some comments about the rating. Aleta  (Sing)  02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented briefly on the mythology comments page, and slightly less briefly on the LGBT peer review page. Aleta  (Sing)  03:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Help with Editing "Adult-child sex" is Appreciated
I noticed that, due to rising tensions surrounding the ACS article and its current AfD, and because of disregard for proper Wikipedia procedure and policies by a number of regular editors and admins, you have decided to withdraw either permanently or temporarily from editing associated with this article. VigilancePrime and Pairadox have chosen to take a similar course of action. This saddens me, because contributions by upstanding Wikipedians such as yourselves are very helpful in the improvement process of controversial articles such as this. Your assistance will be greatly missed, if you choose to leave or hold back on editing the ACS article. Considering prior repeated attempts by select editors to ignore and violate Wikipedia policies and to do whatever is possible to destroy this piece, your civil, well-balanced, and rational editing will definitely be needed, no matter the outcome of the AfD. Although I realize that it is difficult to contribute when so many violations and incivilities are taking place, I urge you to return to this article as soon as you can. I will personally be happy to see you return, and I'm sure the article will be the better for it as well. Best regards, ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex
User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Block
You, as an admitted doppelganger of User:TlatoSMD, who is indef blocked, are also indef blocked. See the other account's talk page for more info. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)