Talk:Girllover

Step One: Opening debates

References

There are no reliable sources for this article. The sources included in this version: [1] are all unreliable, mostly one wiki. If a reliable source covering the term makes it appear a notable term then we can revisit having an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so I think notability would be hard to prove, and referenced material could be included in other articles such as pro pedophilia activism or pedophilia. In the meantime, anyway, I support redirecting the page04:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

eliminating an entire article like this is POV-pushing. Asserting that there are NO RELIABLE SOURCES ANYWHERE? Needs improvement? Yes. Immediate removal justified? Absolutely not. Many Wiki articles have no references or weak references. These articles are in need of attention and improvement just like this one. To redirect this article as it has been, though, is not entirely accurate either. Instead of snapping it back, how about working on the article or at least allowing others the chance to do it. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is simply not necessary. we don't have articles on slang terms for cannabis, eg weed (cannabis) etc and nor should we have one for this slang term for pedophiles. How is that POV. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you read the article, you'd see that there's a difference. If you read the references, you'd see there's a difference. Maybe a slender differentiation, but still a difference. I tagged the article for reference improvement as well, but that's not good enough? Tell me, what would be necessary for you to "allow" such an article? How many references? How much differentiation? (Oh yes, generally I have seen/would expect this to be talk-paged out before any continued reverts to redirect... that's how similar discussions have gone in the past... or would you assert that this page is different or undeserving in that respect?) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and I see it is nopt properly referenced (anarchopedia!) and is extremely POV in a way that tries to trivialise pedophilia anmd allow the pedophiles themselves to define the subject. We can and I believe dop discuss this at the PPA article, why would we need this when it isnt referenced properly and is POV? Thanks, SqueakBox 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve the article instead of removing it with the comment "please source properly instead of this unreferenced and pro girllover tract"! How can you expect improved and proper sourcing when you remove what needs to be sourced? I can see and understand that this could be (will be?) a topic of controversy, but the differentiation is important. One reference even pointed to an anti-girllover page as well, so I don't think that the case can be exclusively made that this page "allow the pedophiles themselves to define the subject". Still, my main contention is that you won't even allow the page to last a quarter of a day for other editors to improve. THAT is a form of POV-pushing, even if subtle (and I'm not alleging intentional). As with any article on Wikipedia, give it time. (Not only that, but I don't understand why you tag this with the PAW when there's no page here... How can a page that doesn't exist be part of any project?) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged as PAW because this talk page was/is open, and as long as it remains so it should remain tagged. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all of the material taken from the "Anarchopedia" website. It isn't reliable and doesn't belong in a WP article. Likeswise the blog material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchopedia is about as unreliable as it gets but generally any wiki falls below our standards of verifiability. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

I found that the terminology has been discussed before, and that even differentiated between terms. Granted, the discussion seems dead without conclusion, but the distinctions were made. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find sources first, and see what they say. If there are none then we won't have anything to write about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I added one better reference, more external links for conversion into references, and properly tagged (as hundreds of articles on Wiki are tagged) as REFIMPROVE, OR, and NPOV. The latter two are somewhat proactive as those assertions have not yet been made, but I prefer to err on the side of preventative caution. Let's see what the future holds for expansion on this one, eh? VigilancePrime (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:EL recently? Almost every source and link fails to meet those standards. Self-pubished sites, such as wikis, forums, blogs, and one-person sites, are not considered reliable as sources and in some cases not even usable as external links. I appreciate your willingness to work, but I strongly suggest leaving the article aside until we can track down reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget WP:IAR! (that was meant to be humorous)

Have you seen Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Articles needing additional references recently? Having no or weak references is hardly new. I'm not denying that it needs work, only that it DOES need work and that in order to get that work it needs an article. (Did that line even make sense? I think you know what I meant even if I'm not that lucid around midnight.) VigilancePrime (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen that category. I'd like to remind you that WP:V says that unsourced material may be removed at any time. Please start from scratch, find good sources, then summarize what they say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not insert material you copied from other websites. That is plagiarism. If you do so again I will seek to have your editing privilieges blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... threats. Nice. Considering that I tried to cite it yet you instead remove those and force that issue, the plagarism angle seems particularly weak. Not only that, I indicated that it was as much and under a GFDL license.

If unsourced content can be removed at any time, perhaps I'll go through and start being a deletionist, tearing out anythin in any article that is not directly cited (and of course give you credit for directing it). Lastly, though I agree with it, I find it slightly humorous that "our" Wiki deems all other wiki's unreliable... Think about that one for a moment... :-)

VigilancePrime (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You kept re-adding it, even when you said you'd removed it. Please follow WP policies and guidelines. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me! You're accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point?I said that I would remove the references, which is what you asked. Now you're threatening me and harrassing the article to prove a point (which is, as far as I can tell, you're better at this or "more powerful" or something?). Instead of bashing the walls of the article in, give thought to copyediting, summarizing, paraphrasing, adding, formatting, and/or referencing. If you want to find tons of unsourced statements, try the RANDOM ARTICLE function and come back when you're out or articles! (The point is, there are a lot and this one, like many others, is under improvement, if you'll let be improved.) VigilancePrime (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to remove the material, and you said you did.

Please remove all of the material taken from the "Anarchopedia" website. It isn't reliable and doesn't belong in a WP article. Likeswise the blog material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any other interpretation.

Anyway, it's a well-established principle that WP articles don't use self-published sources except with specific exceptions. Despite the objections of two experienced editors, you keep restoring it. Right now the article is one short paragraph and one long quotation from a non-notable blogger who favors the topic. The blog quotation has to got too, which leaves one short paragraph. We already have that much in the pro-pedophile activism article, which is why it makes more sense to cover this topic, along with "boylove", and "childlove", together in one article. Most sources that discuss one of these will discuss all three. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covered?

When you say that it's covered in the PPA article, are you referring to this one sentence? That's hardly covered. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate there are issues re that article being locked that should not affect whether we have an article here, if you think the coverage there of girl (and boy) lover is poor the obvious solution is to improve the coverage in that article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession

I just went through the revision history. I must say, you two are obsessed. Every thing about this article must be removed because you don't like it? That's what I see here. In most articles on Wikipedia, content that is not directly sourced is tagged {{fact}} first. Many articles have year-old reference-related tags. But here, you two will not even allow an article to have a chance at improvement?

The quote that was definitive of the topic was removed because it was not relevant? How is it not relevant when it speaks to the core of the article's topic? Is it not relevant because you don't like it? I can't see any other reasoning.

All websites are ultimately self-published. (Ever try to publish something on someone else's site? You can't do it.) I'm not quite sure that "self-published" is a good enough explanation (but it sounds good). As for the removal of the FBI link, I assume you're referring to #13 on Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided; I understand, but believe this to be a good example of Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules, as this link is clearly legitimate and adds significantly to the article (and even enhances your position anyway, if you would use it as a further reference instead of simply scalpel-ing the page).

All I ask is all I have asked before: give the article the chance to grow, receive attention, and maybe even help it instead of constantly cutting anything in it you don't like. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

Thank you for your continued diligence in enhancing and adding to the total Wikipedia project!

VigilancePrime (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is that you start with reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, articles don't START with sources at all... they gain sources as additional sources and editors come into the mix. I'm not asking for anything more than the average Wikipedia article gets. I've spent far too much time on this article already constantly trying to change it to meet your wishes (meaning I wouldn't have expected to spend much time on this article at all) when all I was originally after was de-redirecting it from an article that was not entirely a synonym. The most recent changes, I hope, will be to your threshhold of acceptance; I commented a lot through it to assist future editors. The references section is a cross of WP:EL and WP:IAR, among others. Give it a little time, eh? VigilancePrime (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally if new articles are disputed they get rapidly speedy deleted, and if not and no-one disputes them, hey what you say is true. But for you to start claiming that this article, whose lack of sources is strongly disputed by 2 editors, should be somehow treated like an article that nobody disputes is to assume that other editors have no rights to dispute your work, at least "for a little time" or some such thing. If you don't wish to make the article acceptable according to the standards of others there is a simple solution, ie we redirect again, but your time to improve it to an acceptable level is running out. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people try to make stubs into articles. You try to make articles into stubs. Wow. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I was merely recognising it as the stub it was. You don't seriously have a problem with this do you? I would have thought you should be glad I am trying to improve the article after my disliki of edit warring led me to abandon my redirection strategy, at least until we can get some more agreement on the matter than just Will and I. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marking it as a stub is fine, I was referring to cutting it from article-length to stub-length! But yes, I think and hope we can come to an end-state agreement on this, which is why I rolled back all the way to the beginning and added the only thing that we all can (sortof) agree on. Perfect? Not by a long shot. Good enough for all of us to get off the computer for the day? I hope so, cause I'm about to roll... Take care and Happy Christmas/Hannakkuh/Kwanza/Yuletide/etc.! VigilancePrime (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Try

You comment your last change, SqueakBox, as "improve opening", when in fact is is nothing more than a revert to this version, retaining the now-referenced caption. You can do better than that. Did you look at the differences? One EL moved to an inline reference (your revert then put it in twice). The entire article was rephrased or removed/commented-out. You see why I'm skeptical? The appearance is that you are simply deleting all attemptes to introduce, enhance, fix, expand, or better the article. I do not believe that is the case, but it certainly appears that way. Two editors challenge the references. Yes. (Only two?) I do not buy in to the argument that the two-editor-dissent is grounds for tearing it apart. As I said before, that's what {{fact}}and {{refimprove}} tags are for. At least don't try to make your reverts surruptitious like the last one... That's just pushing devious (not there yet, but certainly close). VigilancePrime (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well that is what I meant, improving the article by reverting the opening to a more neutral version, and how do you know how well I can do? I can see why I am scepticval but am not entirely sure where you are coming from but let me assure you I am doing my best, as I always do. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your username a lot before and never taken issue with any edits. As for where I'm coming from, I just think that the redirect was a bit misleading. I got drawn into this after another user's page was altered, removing a link here, and followed the links... I get in more trouble and get more headaches following links to more links to more links... VigilancePrime (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Squeak, I finally remembered/discovered where I knew you from: We had worked together (sorta) on removing the girllover WikiCategory while helping Roman to remain civil. That category was probably a bad idea, mostly due to WP:BIO reasons. Anyway, I noticed/realized that tonight. (See, we can get along and agree!) I am curious, though, simply for edification, how Roman's note about a photo can be taken for "solicitation", which he was banned for. Ellis was a little over-the-top on her comments, and rightfully blocked indef., but I'm wondering if perhaps there was more than just this instance for Roman (cause it doesn't make sense from that one line). Anyway, just wanted to let you know where we "met" and have worked side-by-side before. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Your comments even show you're not attempting to edit with NPOV. "fact tag but wont wait too long in this case"? That shows a clear intention to remove quickly because you don't like it. Try to seperate yourself from the article; that's what I do (and have done on other articles). Also, trying to "add some, remove some" See Also for neutrality? This article is about the ones you removed (and that's even in the article) and has no mention of the others. Are they related? Yes. Directly? No. That'd be like putting Star Wars in the See Also section of Star Trek. They are related, but Trek is not about SW. I know you're not working to be WP:NPOV here, but I am. Of course, I'm working, period. You're only un-working. How many times must I implore you to help and rereference instead of just removing everything? VigilancePrime (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I rolleed this back to the very first version, with our links and see also added (and images). I modified the EL section do differentiate references/footnotes from other EL of interest (potential references). Can we at least agree that this minimalist article is sufficient for the time being? We all have better things to be doing this week, I'm sure... 23:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC) :-)

Actually I am more not less available for this voluntary work than normal and I dont really have anything better to do on wikipedia than this myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's usually how I am. Hey, have a great week.

IF I COULD, THOUGH...! I do need a lot of help (or at the very least, viewpoints) on two essays, and if you have the time I'd like the input (or, if you find yourself in even vague, minimal agreement, feel free to edit hem around yourself to make them better too!). They are WP:OSE and VP:AA. Like I said, if you happen to have the time, energy, and boredom to take a look! Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step Two: Collaboration & Time

Differentiation

So much to cover... let's see...

WB, the heading was references and it was the references that I thought you objected to. The content has now been removed as well (the copy-n-paste) and had been by the time you started in on your complaining about my attempts at article improvement, again. Quit yer whinin'.
SqueakBox, thank you for trying to work in good faith on this. I would hope that Will has seen the last comments from yesterday and realizes that we have come to something of an understanding that is at least marginally accepted by both of us. Thanks for that.
From everything I have managed to read, there is a significant difference between PPA and GL/BL. The former deals exclusively with children under the age of 12/13. The latter can deal with teenagers as well. The former is exclusively based in sexuality, where the latter not always is. If we are going to truly be NPOV about it, these differences warrant seperate articles.
The quote that you continually refer to as self-published, blog, and POV is exactly what it is presented as: Self-description. Not only is it simply a self description, but it's been used by others to illustrate that self description (hence the double-reference). It is not being asserted as self-describing fact, but as the viewpoint that it is. That's exactly why it is important.
You continue to point out that this article is too small. What is too small? Is a single sentence too small? There are one-sentence articles on Wikipedia. It sounds like you're trying to say that Wikipedia cannot have short articles, something that is both a poor attempt at using an Other Stuff Exists argument as well as a factual inaccuracy. As stated above and previously, the topics of PPA and GL have fundamental differences from all reports, both solid and, as you say, unreliable. Even so-called unreliable sources, when there's a lot of them and they are all in agreement, at the least must lend credence to their collective accuracy. These two articles appear to be fundamentally different.
Redirecting this page to PPA would be just as innaccurate to directing to a Pro-ephebophilia activism page. A girllover, as has been demonstrated in many references of different "reliabilities", can be a term related to 12-and-under or 13-and-older. Better said, perhaps (though I'm not necessarily claiming this to be the case), all pedophiles (assuming toward females) are girllovers, but not all girllovers are pedophiles; all ephebophiles (assuming toward females) are girllovers, but not all girllovers are ephebophiles. See the big difference?
Question: Would sites like these make for better references? (I'd like to get your views on their "reliability" before trying to use them and you getting all riled up again.) Innocence In Danger: International Child Protection Movement (note, this site has its own POV, clear in the manner of writing, and some subtle inaccuracies, but does back up that not all girllovers are pedophiles or law-breakers) and Annabel Leigh's FAQ (similarly not entirely NPOV, but in the other direction, and distinctly points out both sexual and nonsexual interests inherent in the term)?

That's all I'm saying; these concepts clearly appear to be different enough that we do a disservice to our readers and researchers in grouping them together erroneously. I like to think that we can, through time and collaboration, improve this article significantly, and I am willing (and have been trying) to work with you and give it that time, compromise on content that is heatedly contested, and tweak the terminology and phraseology to be both NPOV and acceptable to you as well. Your help in improving this necessary standalone article is (would be) appreciated.

VigilancePrime (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site, http://www.innocenceindanger.org/index.php?id=230, appears to be the effort of a group, and would qualify as a reliable source. This iste, http://www.annabelleigh.net/faq.htm, is self-published and would not qualify. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have the same origination type and same intent, just in opposite directions (and not even opposite, just divergent). You see why I can be so exasperated? One set is okay, but another set is not, even though the actual core difference in their reliability-ishness is minimal (or even trivial). VigilancePrime (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them again. The "boylove" logo is inappropriate because that's a different topic. The "glogo" image is a copyright violation, see [[2]]. I removed some of the external links which don't meet the standards of WP:EL. Please don't restore them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This edit I can't think of any classification other than vandalism. The image removed is clearly uncopyrighted as is indicated on the image page. The continued blanking and removal of images, paragraphs (double-referenced), and links ("self-published" - IOW an article on IBM can't use information from IBM.com?) is nothing more than petty vandalism. SqueakBox and I both have been able to come to an agreement on the slow improvement of this article and both compromised, but you, Will B., still seem to be focused on nothing more than blanking, and it is now to the point of vandalism, low-level and (potentially) unintentional as it may (or may not) be. Please stop. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said many times that blogs are not permissible as sources, and that the quote is not appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to ONE of the three issues (nice attempt at avoiding the other two). So, back to the original issues. First of all, the blog is in the correct context and permissable, in the very least, under WP:IAR as it adds significantly to the article and the article's understandability. Not to mention that it's presented as a viewpoint. Please get off it; this is the weakest of your arguments. Secondly, you fail to address the removal of links that are just as valid as the one you mentioned above is okay. Just because you like or don't like a link doesn't make it any more or less valid. Most of this article is being multiple-referenced, which not only strengthens the utilized references, but also negates the "not good enough" argument through repeated verifiability (the more sites that say it, the more likely it is, being the basic, if cliche and simplistic, way to say it). Thirdly, you never addressed your removal of an image that you stated was copyrighted, but is clearly and unequivocally not copyrighted. Look at the image's page and you will see this to be the case! You are deleting things either without looking into the correctness of your statements or in spite of the fallacy of them. FINALLY, please respect the {{inuse}} tag. Unlike you, I am attempting to make improvements to this article and would appreciate the absolute least of common courtesy that this tag requests. Many thanks fot that much. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article depends on the foundations of good sources. Blogs are not good sources, neither are self-published websites. It'd be easier to respond to your points if you didn't create so many sections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier if you read first and responded. I am being organized here, hence the headings. Anyway, as far as references go, the one with which I most would agree with you on reliability issues is anarchopedia. But, please note that Wikipedia accepts this as one of many references: Defamation, IGE, Hanfparade, Jeremy Hammond, and Anarchy all use it as a reference and/or external link. Anything can be a good reference if it is used correctly. Are we asserting that a statement in a blog is a universal fact, not backed up by any other reference? No. We are using two blogs that quoted another site, one that was designed as an informational resource, in order to illustrate a point-of-view that both "blog" sites, even though they hold opposing views, have put forth. When someone from Team A makes a statement about Team B that Team B also made, generally I accept that it's pretty close to the truth (otherwise Team B would have balked at it), so to speak. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the "inuse" tag, I'll let you edit in peace for the time being, but I will remove inappropriate material and sources when you're done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no matter what happens or what is added, reworded, referenced, or fixed, you are going to revert it back to your preferred version without even reading or viewing the changes. Yes? Is that correct? That appears to be your standard M.O., so I thought I'd ask first so I won't be surprised (though it wouldn't have surprised me much at this point anyway). VigilancePrime (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said. What I said is that I will remove sources that don't meet our standards. Standards that you seem to be wilfilly ignoring after being reminded of them. Wikis like "anarchopedia" are not reliable sources. See WP:V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anar. is reliable enough for other editors and other articles. Maybe it's just you. And does that also include removing the "copyrighted" image? You see, the reason I have to interpret what you say differently from what you'll do is because you have already done things that are different from what you say. "removed copyrighted image" was not what you did. "blanked image" is what you did. "removed links" is not what you did. "reverted to my [meaning yours] last version" is what you did. There is such a pattern here that I am amazed you can't see it. So please stop blanking the page, blanking sections of the page, or reverting without rationale. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are not allowed in general because they are self published. The only self-published sites that are acceptable are those of recognized experts writing about their topics of expertise. As for "removed" and "blanked" they mean the same thing: "deleted". Do you deny that the image is on a copyrighted page, and therefore is copyrighted? Just because it hasn't been deleted from the Commons yet doesn't mean it's public domain. If you think reverting is a bad then then I invite you to stop doing so. I've given you the policy reasons for deleting the material and in reply you restore is and claim WP:IAR. That's not helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do deny that the image is on a copyrighted page. From Image:FBI-pedophile-symbols-416.jpg: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." Have you read the image pages? You're proving my point that you are indiscriminately removing content. What I am asking you to cease is intentional, disruptive, and indiscriminite blanking of the page.

policies specified

WP:SPS: "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I have given plenty of rationale for the limited use here. To recap: The blogs quote a non-blog site that is no longer available. They back each other up, increasing the reliability of the quote's accuracy.
WP:SELFPUB: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as..." You stated that the one self-published source would be acceptable, and these others are of the same vein. They show differing perspectives. In fact, some are used to describe the opposite of what their sites promote. In this way especially the sites are "not unduly self-serving" and imperatively "is relevant to their notability".
WP:PROVEIT: "Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page." Though as I have been pushing for this, working to accomplisg this, you keep undoing and demanding the undoing of these very methods. I have tried to encourage you to use the tags that your WP:V policy recommends. I have put in hidden comments to assist other editors. Instead of working with the article and allowing these actions that are a direct adherance to policy, you deny them entirely. Additionally, you leave erroneous and intentionally misleading edit summaries. The latter of those could be considered bad faith.
WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." The evidence in some instances, as mentioned many times, is to the contrary. (Still, I assume the good faith, though I'm not required to by guideline.)
WP:DTTR: This is only an essay... but it states "When dealing with established users, it is generally more effective to write them a short personal message, than to apply a standardized template." I have not templated or even commented your Talk page regarding the indiscriminate blanking or indiscriminate reverts, as I usually would to anyone else who comes along and blanks pages, sections, or content for the sole reason of doing so, using inaccurate and false edit summaries. Most of the time I would have already gotten a {{uw-vand1}} and a {{uw-vand2}}, if not even a {{uw-vand2}} with a {{uw-blank3}}. But I'm not templating a regular because I believe in the good-faith concept that we can work this out and that you will hopefully stop being so indiscriminate about it. I hope.
Finally, WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This article is improving, and even if you somehow cannot accept the application of policies and guidelines above, you must lastly apply this one. This page's topic is difficult to research (if you had made any attempts on your own you would know that) and thus IAR may apply here a little more than usual. Still, as I said, this is only if in your mind somehow the above-described, logically-following, specifically-aimed, on-target applications and explanations of policies and guidelines are not sufficient. I don't see how they can't be sufficient, but then again, I also don't remove images from pages when the image is clearly in the public domain and already accepted throughout Wikipedia as a public domain image. Maybe that's just me; I look before I leap (usually).

And, actually, you state "removed" and "blanked" they mean the same thing: "deleted", but this isn't entirely correct. There are subtleties in the terms. Removed indicates an editor in good faith removing something from an article that should be removed. Deleted usually indicates an editor acting in good faith that takes content out of article, but may do so for reasons that are not valid or show an unintentional POV. Blanked refers to the bad-faith removal of large content, sometimes entire pages or entire sections, by either a vandal or an established editor that is POV-pushing, angry, or intentionally disruptive to Wikipedia. Generally, that is. These are typical usage and not 100% across-the-board. Subtlties. Remember subtleties.

Have an awesome day, Will. I hope you have actually read this in its entirety and found it "helpful". VigilancePrime (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions during Improvements

When referencing from a single news article, but the article is split among two or more pages (each having different URLs), would you all prefer ONE reference, pointing to the first page, or a seperate reference line for each URL (and thus page)? I'd like to nail this one the first time instead of making others go through and fix it. Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most multipage news articles have a "print" link that will render the article as one page. That's the best solution if available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did that; thank you! VigilancePrime (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More POV

It appears every time Vigilance edits the article it becomes more of a POV, ie non-neutral mess. It needs NPOVing urgently and I have tagged it as such though I have tom say we either see a dramataic improvement or the article will be put up for deletion. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific to the NPOV parts? My focus has been in non-POV-ing it based on what I have read on this recently (see references). VigilancePrime (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, this edit changed the opening significantly and made it more POV, at least as it is contrary to the sources given. While the sources are not ironclad, they do (and most of them here doso collectively) indicate that a "girllover" is not necessarily sexually attracted to girls, though usually this is the case. By altering the lead to say that this is always the case, you have not only introduced a factual inaccuracy, but done so in what I believe is a POV way. This is why I have been working to multiple-reference as much as I can, including using pro- and con- references for these. So I'm confused about how it's POV when you're the only that pushes it in that direction. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested renaming

I haven't had enough time to go through all the revisions and read everything on this talk page so I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but would it make more sense to move this to Childlover that way we can include "Boylove" into the article? It seems strange to keep them separate because for example, a man's attraction to a woman and a woman's attraction to a man would both be discussed in Heterosexuality. Ospinad (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that page is locked. The only reason given was the original deletion: "15:03, 28 May 2007 Nick (Talk | contribs) deleted "Childlover" ‎ (content was: '#REDIRECT Pro-pedophile activism')" I'm not entirely sure what that means as this page once was as well. Perhaps it was an over-zealous but well-meaning admin who saw no future article. I think that would be a better place for this article and split it into two sections, one Girllover and one Boylover, and redirect this page and the Boylover page to their respective sections. This would also enhance notability and sourcability concerns. If someone can get the page creation block removed, I'll move the page over even and split up the sections. (After that, it's pretty much up to others to add and improve the total article; I'm tired of it by now!) VigilancePrime (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: On the protected titles page, the line is simply "Childlover · activity log · talk page - refer to ArbCom Nick 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)". Can anyone find out whatever happened, if anything, from this? That was awhile ago. VigilancePrime (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be moved to Childlove. That may be better since this page mentions both boy-focused and girl-focused, and that heading would probably best allow the article's growth, with Boylover and Girllover both redirecting to it? VigilancePrime (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These topics are all covere in Pro-pedophilia activism. There's no need for yet another article about the benefits of pedophilia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step Three: Touching it up and better Wikifying

Stability?!?

I have noticed that there have been no revert-warring for a couple days. I imagine that part of the reason is we're all tired and I hope that some of the reason (wishfully a large part) is because most see the article as decent now, if not great. Now that we have come to this point, it would be a good time to revisit some of the things we know need to be improved in the article, maybe even classifying, rating, and making a to-do list for this article. Also, the renaming issue would be a good one to revisit as well if anyone has any thoughts on that matter. Let's discuss! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]

The blog has never been approriate and has been removed several times. Other self-published sources are also inappropriate. If I remove them I assume you'll resinsert them again, even though the poloicy says that they should not be used generally. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually read anything, do you? When you last whined and complained about policy, I went to great lengths to justify everything on that page that you had ever contested. Now you just blank out the comment without justification. I think I liked you better when you at least tried to or pretended to be acting in policy. I have provided backup for the use of the reference you deny. I have pointed out in painful detail the image's usability. I have spent paragraphs giving rationale for the quote and described it ad nauseum to help in your understanding. You cannot seem to give any decent reasoning for their removal other than your opinion of "not appropriate"; that's hardly a convincing argument. I don't understand why you are so opposed to providing a balanced and thorough article on this matter. Is it the topic itself or a general dislike of all improvements on Wikipedia? Your constant bad faith edits, blankings, and other actions clearly show a lack of regard for the universality, neutrality, and thoroughness of the Wikipedia project. Up until now I have managed to assume good faith on your part, but at this point I cannot as you continue to make disruptive edits, intentionally, in spite of discussion, collaboration, and even the application of policy and guideline that you initially were trying to assert. All I can do is continue watching this page and restoring your vandalous blanking edits. I'm tired of doing that, but I have little else left on this article. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous blogs, open wikis, and forums are not appropriate sources. Wikipedia works on consensus and there is not consensus to support your invoking "ignore all rules". I have not removd the properly-sourced material you've added, only the same inappropriate material that you have kept adding since you re-created tihs previously deleted article. You have not assumed good faith, having called my previous cleanup efforts vandalism. I will continue to remove inappropriate sources, and I hope you will not exert ownership of the article by instantly reverting to your preferred versions and by not allowing other editors to alter the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're back to the "not appropriate sources" argument and trying to invoke a reverse-IAR argument. I am not using the IAR argument as I have clearly illustrated the value and keep-ability of the content through policies that you had originally cited (but not explained through policy lines and quotations). There is no consensus at all for removing content from this article either, as has been pointed out "there are two editors" that oppose it (hardly consensus), and even one of those (not you, Will) has agreed to work with this. Your previous edits have finally devolved into vandalism, in spite of my extended good-faith-assumptions. I will continue to restore inappropriate blanking and deletions and hope that you will not exert disruption of the article by instantly reverting to your preferred version and not allowing other editors to see and edit the existing text. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note... In further research of the "open wiki" question, I have found that open wikis were removed as an objection from WP:V two months ago. Not only that, but you already knew this and still assert - contrary to the consensus reflected in WP:Verifiability - that it is the case, and also in spite of the demonstrated examples not just of open sources, but of the very same open source you are claiming does not belong. I would love to hear how you explain away the "inappropriate"-ness on this article while the actual policy removed this prohibition awhile ago. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Oh-By-The-Way, I agree with you, Will, that this image may be mistagged, MAY BE mistagged, but that's a matter for the Commons to decide and when/if they so determine, then it would need to be removed. The consensus, by virtue of being taken over to commons and lasting there, surrently, is that it is free. Is that 100% accurate? Probably not (this is where I am agreeing with you). Should I point that out again? I am agreeing with you in principle on it, but the actual decision is not ours to make through this article; it is the Commons' to make. Anyway, just continuing to search for common ground. Have a great night/morning/day! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]

You have not proven the need to anonymously quote a defunct blog site, nor to source assertions to a pro-pedophile defunct wiki, nor to use a forum as a source or external link. You'e said you think they are necessary, but that doesn't mean the point is proven.

Open wikis have never been acceptable as sources for WP articles. The changing text of policies doens't cange that fact.

Can you, personally, defend the public domain status of the Glogo image, which is hosted on a copyrighted website? If you can't then don't keep restoring it.

I'm not removing any of your edits that are sourced properly. The material I'm deleting is the same stuff I've been complaining about since you recreated this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proving. There has been rationale. You should know the difference. Nothing we can do can prove anything. Either of us.

Then change the policy, because your statement flies in the face both of the actual policy and many pages that use the same source. I got an idea: Go through every page and remove content that has the same reference!

I don't have to. Ya know, I tried to help you find the common ground, and you're attacking me for it. I follow the decisions of Wiki, and the free-ness of that image is one of them.

You're removing a lot that is sourced properly. You don't like the sources. That's the real problem.

And complaining is right. Whining would be apt also. But calm discussion? Not from you.

Have a great day in your high-minded, I'm-superior world. I'll stick to Wiki where I've actually been using policy in spite of myself! :-) VigilancePrime (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newer version

I have cut out a lot poor references, non-neutral material, original research and stuff that didn't read well. While it is shorter I think it is clearly better and now more or less complies with our policies. What do others think. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's much beter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the line "Girllovers may contrast themselves with child molesters." is a grotesquely POV statement? That's along the same lines as saying that "People who own guns may contrast themselves with murderers." Some people who own guns kill. Some people who are girllovers molest children. But to group them together is completely POV. Try this one: "WikiAdmins may contrast themselves with egomaniacs." Are some admins egomaniacs? Yes. Are all? No. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is neutrally-presented verifiable fact that self-professed girllovers contrast girlloving with child abuse or molestation. They say things like "Girllovers don't abuse girls. Just the opposite: they love them and wouldn't hurt them." However I'm not sure it's in a relaible source, and I'm not sure we should be summarizing primary sources. If there's a secondary source which says so then we should keep it, otherwise it should go. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you don't see it (because you don't want to). You see, that's your inherant bias. Everyone has bias, it's a matter of controlling it, and nobody can be 100% at it. That's fine. I just have to accept that you and Squeak are hell-bent on telling people that girllovers are child molesters. You are stating that a condition and an action are the same. That's not a true statement, but you are still pushing it. I accept that. Tha above analogy is still valid. By saying that SOME Admins MAY contrast themselves with Egomaniacs, one would be saying that Admins ARE Egomaniacs and that MOST DO NOT consider themselves different from Egomaniacs. It was actually an excellent analogy (and I've been in an analogy slump for quite awhile). I'm not saying that most (or even many) Admins are Egomaniacs, because that would be both false and opinionated. The same is true of your statement. It is both false (at the least misleading) and opinionated (and POV-laden). But you refuse to read your own writing without the filter of your own POV, and that's okay. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have me confused Vigilnce. The "Girllovers may contrast themselves with child molesters." was me presenting the girllovers POV, as the neutrality policy demands that we do. Your "complete relationship" was not a concept you presented in a clear way, and this was my attempt to present it in a clearer way. I can attest that I edit here in a neutral way because that is the only thing I am "hell-bent on" re all my edits to various places on this project. Attacking either admins in general or Will inparticular is counter-productive, please desist and lets concentrate on content. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Will that if you wish to delete this currently unsourced and disputed sentence I won't oppose you. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When have I attacked admins or even Will? Do I need to refer to my many, many references to the Good Faith I have lent through all this? To say that "SOME" "MAY" indicates that most do not. That is the same as saying that most ARE. THat's the problem. It's also a statement of fact rather than how before, sources, even if not perfect, spoke for themselves. Wasn't that the point of not using even primary sources? We don't analyze? Okay, we do analyze, but when you say that being attracted to girls in a sexual way IS child sexual abuse, you have introduced an inhenently POV statement. There is a clear and significant distinction between CONDITION/BELIEF and ACT. Child Sex Abuse is an act. Attraction to children is a condition. The "See Child Sexual Abuse" combines them together. That's a subtle POV. To say that only some girllovers are not child molesters is saying that all are, again equating a condition or belief (childloving) to an act (sexual contact and thus abuse). This is subtle, but significant. I attempted to make the subtleties clearer by using the same logic applied to something less controversial, WikiAdmining. You cannot deny that of all the WikiAdmins, there are no egomaniacs. Now if one were to claim that all were, they would be mistaken, and obviously so. Thusly so mistaken would a statement saying that "SOME Admins are not Egomaniacs." That statement is telling its reader that most are, and this simply is not true. (I'm effectively defending WikiAdmins in general through this analogy, by the way!) You and Will cannot see the POV-ness of those two statements, no matter how many times, how many ways, or haw clearly it's pointed out to you because you do not want to see it. That's a natural human condition and I don't fault you for it. That's a large part of the reason I haven't reverted anything back to the more information-filled, better referenced, show-the-facts-don't-tell-the-facts version. It's useless. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to talk about girllovers, not about admins. And sure, I am very critical of our current admin system, as it happens, but don't see any connection between that and what is happening here. But I do consider myself to be an independent editor and do believe I have created a more neutral, encyclopedic version of this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Some figglestat are not gezacks." This phrase therefore tells us that most figglestats are gezacks. If no figglestats are gezacks, the statement gives a factually inaccurate perception.

Does that analogy make sense now?

Replace with Girllovers/Child Molesters or Admins/Egomaniacs and you'll see the point. If you can't understand the analogy now, there's nothing more to do and no simpler way to break it down.

This has never been about WikiAdmins; that class was used as an example of a fallable statement. I guess you don't or didn't see the fallacy of stating that "Some Admins are not Egomaniacs." I would be as opposed to that statement on NPOV grounds as these two others. That's the point. This has nothing to do with Admins, figglestats, or gezacks. Analogy, now that's related. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not following you. There is no logical connection between admins and girllovers. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. That's why I used the analogy, so nobody could say otherwise. You really don't get it? Okay. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, so I'd try to articulate yourself better if I were you. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try trolling for a personal attack. Not my fault if you didn't understand the ease of analogy. "Some editors may contrast themselves with non-understanding simpletons." (That is, of course, a NPOV statement.) VigilancePrime (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, get off your soap box. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object to simply changing the line to "Girllovers contrast themselves with child molestors" ? Ospinad (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you! (because you were the one who did it.) See? Now that wasn't very hard, was it? Ospinad (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I include Thanks in my automatic signature, all a part of being civil. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Question

Serious question: Can a person be a Girllover without being a "self-described" girllover? I wonder because this term is not one that the media seems to use without the term "self-described" or similar preceeeding it.

Naturally following this, though, I don't expect that many child molesters seriously try to assert "I'm not a child molester, I'm only a girllover." For instance, Jack McClellan would call himself (and has been called in the media at times) a girllover. He is not a child molester. But in a news story that same night, (awhile back, I'm being a little metaphorical here now with the "next news story") a man was arrested and later convicted of rape of a minor, which would be child sex abuse, but this man never was called, considered, or thought of as a girllover or childlover.

So it begs the question, is there overlap in these categories or not? If so, the "one does not necessarily equal the other" needs to be very clear, along with "one may overlap with the other". If not, then the distinction should be made very clear.

And lastly, suppose a girllover eventually did molest a child. Would that person still be considered a girllover? Or is the term construed to indicate someone who "never has and never would"?

Just curious for others' thoughts. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is responding going to improve the article? How is your comment related to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the question of defining the term. I think the definition of the word is "related" to the article. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Sure this is the article on girllovers. What did you expect? This is wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with what the reliable sources say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clogo

Can this be used for a reference? Ospinad (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.clogo.org

I don't think so. It appears to be a one-person, self-published effort. On the opening screen is an email link, to Norbert de Jonge, the obvious webmaster and writer of most (if not all) of the material. I don't see any indication that it is a group effort with an editorial process. De Jonge is not an acknowledged expert on the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step Four

I noticed a page (link to link to link to... well, you all get the point) and it made me think of all of you. It seems to me that this page is exactly what this page here is about, only it is far better-written, better-referenced, and not nearly as heated. From that first line: "Lolicon is a slang portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex". In Japan, the term is used to describe an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person" Sounds to me that it is exactly the same as what this article is trying to say. I'm debating about just off and redirecting it for you, but wondering if you'd all start a flame war and revert war about it, even though it does seem a bit obvious. I don't know what would happen with one less page for people to watch over like hawks for the slightest bit of neutrality, but hey, I'll leave it to the experts. Maybe adding a small section about "western" terms (GL, as the example) where you could put the two-heart logo. Anyway, on the off chance you hadn't seen it before (and if anyone had, what was the point of all your fighting here?), I wanted to let you all know. Feel free to go add it to your hit-list... I mean... PAW. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone even read the Talk page? I'm curious because the above clearly demonstrates how the page Lolicon should HELP you not have to deal with this anymore. I think it's funny that you keep weakening. I would have thought you'd be happy to have this as a redirect to a referenced article that was very specific to the same exact thing. Is it a matter of being able to control one article and not the other? I'm seriously trying to understand it. I would be thrilled to find that a stubby article I had been working on already had a thorough article on the exact same thing with a different name. If it's a matter of control, add PAW to that page and take it over! Seems simple enough. Maybe someone can explain how the terms do not refer to the same thing in case I am missing something. I thought I was helping you out, trying to reduce your life stress... VigilancePrime (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just make your mind up what you want. You are driving me crazy changing your mind like this, and its not good for the encyclopedia. My own take is the article should be a redirect to pedophilia, I don't agree it should be a redirect to lolicon, you have no consensus for this so please do not do it again without getting some agreement and consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goal was a thorough neutral article. You and your posse won't "allow" that. So when I happened apon another article that was the exact same thing as this, I thought I'd come help you out. But perhaps you are a control freak and cannot abide an article that you can't control (like you control this one). I don't know. You see, through any of this I've tried to work with you, but you refuse to do anything anymore but revert my edits out of hand. You are the reason Wikipedia fails credibility sometimes. Now that I am "back" and spoon-feeding you an easy solution to this whole article, you refuse to even consider that it may be the perfect solution for you. This article has had so much bad faith throughout it's absolutely unbelievable. By redirecting to a long, thorough article that is referenced (Will can't whine about it anymore) and about the exact same thing, I would expect you to be happy and embrace the solution. Why are you so stuck on owning this stub? The redirect to Lolicon is more logical than any other edit you, Will, Jack or myself have done on this article, ever. It's an article better than all of us. Redirecting there is (should be) a no-brainer. VigilancePrime (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC) BTW: you still didn't answer or respond to the questions or concerns... instead you focus on me and not the article... can you make up your mind what you're trying to attack?[reply]

(edit conflict additional comment) Consensus? You make unilateral edits without thought all the time! Now, let's think (yes, brain cell activation required) about this.

A girllover and a lolicon are the same thing. As demonstrated on the Lolicon article and indicated above.

girllover and pedophilia are not the same thing. A girllover is a person. Pedophilia is a condition or characteristic.

A girllover can also be an ephebophile (though this is contested). To redirect to one and not the other would be POV or at the least imprecise. Even considering the contestation, there is the disambiguation aspect of the vague directing.

If a Girllover is a Lolicon, and a Lolicon is a Girllover (being "an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person"), what could possibly be your objection to the redirect (other than keeping power over something)?

Or is it really just about you, control, and PAW?

Your version most certainly was not NPOV (neutral), it was thoroughly biased in favour of presenting girllovers in a positive light and used bad sources to do so. Now please stop being rude as it is very tiresome. BTW obviously pedophilia and girlover are not the same thing but pedophile (which redirects to pedophilia) and girllover most assuredly are the same thing. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's your problem. They are not assuredly the same thing. That has ben demonstrated. Your version was (is) certainly not NPOV either. You still have not addressed the point above regarding the redirect. Instead, you continue to attack me and avoid actual discussion. THIS is why I am constantly faced with bad faith on your part. If you would discuss instead of avoid, so much more could be accomplished. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack you? Are you being serious or not? This is becoming very tedious and unless you change your way of being here I simply will not talk yo you on the basis that you are not being serious. "brain cell activation required", what kind of statement is this? Now get serious or go away20:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Are you going to answer the questions? I'm betting not. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What question is that? You haven't even tried to prove your latest assertion, that this is the same as lolicon, using reliable sources and until you do I have nothing to add. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed your accidentally duplicating your earlier comments and your silly personal attack. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove talk page comments. You should know better. There's no personal attack. I reiterated lines because they needed additional focus. You still don't respond. Further, your comments to my user talk page were intentionally demeaning, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't have the presence of mind to see it that way. Lastly, if it was "clearly" a copy of Wiki, I would have seen it, eh? Have you noticed that I have already noted that error and thanked the person who fixed it? (BTW: You're not the one who fixed it or pointed it out civilly. Still waiting for rationale for not combining two articles that individually say essentially the same thing. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove talk page comments, I remove a duplication of talk page comments, the originals are still there. Please do not troll this page. I see you aren't going to provide the reliable sources or even attempt to do so, I am not interested in rationales but in your providing verifiable sources for your claim that girllover and lolicon are the same thing. That is all. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Lolicon. Someone else has actually discussed this. You could learn. Thank you again for removing comments (the non-duplicated parts). Wikipedia has policies against people acting like you have been (deleting talk comments, POV-pushing, aggressive bad-faith comments, etc.). The discussion is moot now, as far as Girllover vs. Lolicon, not because of you, but because someone else answered the same questions I asked of you. Thanks for not helping. Carry on with your PAW hyper-patrolling. The stated mission is a very good mission and is worthy of close oversight. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on about, all you actually seem to be doing is attacking me. Please stop. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]