User:Flyer22 Frozen/"Common use" and "own" at Pedophilia article

I usually do not care what KimvdLinde has to say about me, but since she may try and use her User:KimvdLinde/Own at pedophile‎ to make a skewed case against me and get her POV in the Pedophilia article, I might as well prepare my rebuttal.

KimvdLinde’s "WP:Own" charge regarding the Pedophilia article is completely bogus. Not only bogus...but she focuses only on me as though I am the only person who objects to her skewed definition of pedophilia. Therefore, in this piece, I will focus mainly on her actions at the article and talk page (for now anyway).

KimvdLinde says I:

1. Reject changes that are based on reliable sources because it does not fit the existing slant. Nope. KimvdLinde is wrong. *Sighs* I reject changes that are not reliable based on WP:MEDRS, or which contradict the editors trying to put them forth (for example, KimvdLinde tries to use dictionary sources in order to prove her point that "common use" of the term simply means "children," completely neglecting the fact that those same dictionary sources define a child as a person "between birth and puberty."
2. Run off (new) editors; being dismissive of effort of other ("new") editors. This is blatantly false, as it is clear from the talk page that I have worked or tried to work with every editor who has recently brought up their problems with the article (three). I am the one who has taken the time to talk with them, while most of the other usual editors are either too busy or have had enough of them and their rants.
3. Do not engage in discussions. Also blatantly false, which is further demonstrated by the fact that KimvdLinde uses this ref as a source. Using that ref is completely absurd, as it shows I actually did engage in a long discussion. I simply got tired of repeating myself. So sue me. But what that link doesn’t show is that I continued to engage in discussion afterwards.
4. Display contrary behavior just because they do not like the way the other editor is bringing up thing. Sigh. Don't even have to tackle this.
5. Claim consensus even when other editors are not responding. KimvdLinde uses this as a source. Bogus! Is WP:Consensus achieved through no response? Editors not responding means there is consensus? Could have fooled me.

The TRUE definition and misuses

The main problem with KimvdLinde's definition of pedophilia is that it is a misuse of the term, as made clear with repeated authoritative and expert sources in the article and on the talk page. Here are just a few links or refs that make clear the true definition of pedophilia.[1][2][3][4]. And even expert thoughts from James M. Cantor [5]. Now, for that second source, the ICD-10, KimvdLinde will cite that it says "or early pubertal age," but what KimvdLinde fails to mention is that early pubertal people often still look prepubertal, and that a pedophile going after an early pubescent still does not stop the fact that he prefers prepubescents. Mr. Cantor has also stressed looks.

KimvdLinde acts as though I only define a pedophile by his preference to prepubertal children...when it is clear from this discusion that is not true. Furthermore, KimvdLinde acts as though the DSM-IV is the only source to restrict pedophilia to prepubescent children, when it is clear from the abundance of sources in the Pedophilia article that this is not true. And, what, only America defines pedophilia this way? Really? What sources say that?

KimvdLinde insists that this misuse should come first in the lead, because it is more common, even though it includes both pubescent and post-pubescents (ie. biological adults). Refer to these sources for how the term is often misused and the problems this causes:[6][7]

KimvdLinde acts as though the word "children" only refers to prepubescents and early pubescents, and as though people will naturally assume this just by seeing "children," despite the fact that the Child article and other sources[8] [9] state otherwise. A child often means any person under 18. How KimvdLinde can restrict the definition to prepubescents and early pubescents is beyond me...especially since just like post-pubescents, pubescents are biological adults as well. KimvdLinde says she does not include a sexual attraction/preference to post-pubescents in her definition of pedophilia, but my point is that the word "child" does include post-pubescents, as the links above show. An underage post-pubescent minor is a minor child. If we put "children" in without any qualifier, how can one know that we only mean prepubescents or prepubescents and early pubescents?

The question is..."Should common and wrong usage come before correct and authoritative usage on a medical topic?" I don’t see how or why it should, and have never seen such a thing carried out by Wikipedia. It's not even carried out at the Vegetarianism article, which addresses how common use of the term extends to pescetarianism. KimvdLinde continues to want her POV first in the Pedophilia article, all because she hates the fact that pubescents and probably other underage kids are left out of what truly defines a pedophile, despite other definitions covering that (hebephilia, ephebophilia). She is therefore pushing for her own POV to be in the article...and for it to even come first. "Early pubertal" is already in the lead, and yet this is not enough for her. It must come first, according to her.

KimvdLinde says I claim to be an expert on pedophilia. I have never claimed to be an expert in the same vein as James Cantor, but my user page does say, "Flyer has significant knowledge in the social/scientific/psychological/sexual fields, as well as in popular culture topics such as soap operas, but will not edit much scientific or mathematics material due to being tired of it." and that is true.

Consensus for medical use coming before common use in the lead

Supporting medical use first

1. Myself
2. Stevertigo[10][11]
3. Legitimus[12]
4. James Cantor/James Cantor[13]
5. Jack-A-Roe[14]
6. SqueakBox[15]
7. Herostratus[16]
8. Nick Levinson[17]

• Most recent past extensive work-out for the lead, touching on "preference" wording: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 13#Experience of preference. Stevertigo objected to the lead's wording, but we were able to work together quite well and even bonded.

Non-support for medical use first

1. KimvdLinde[18]
2. Jokestress[19]

Other issues

General

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult sexual interest in children for more problems with misuse of the definition and how KimvdLinde was originally for correct usage.

See this move discussion for more on misusing the term.

WP:UNCIVIL

Rudeness by Jokestress -- mainly aimed at James Cantor. Too much to go over. A simple check of their contributions, especially at the Pedophilia talk page, will show this.

Rudeness by KimvdLinde:

1. [20]. Continued assertion[21][22] that I did not know that the DSM says "13 years or younger" when it is clear from this discusion and the years I have been working on the article that I did/do, and despite my reasoning for having reverted her. Apparently, I was "hiding behind others" by assuming good faith.
2. "just to get it through [my] head..."[23]
3. Even Legitimus, who is usually always a gentleman, accusing KimvdLinde of being uncivil.[24]
4. KimvdLinde denying rudeness with yet more rudeness.[25]
5. Despite the rudeness, my attempting not to sink to the same level.[26]
6. KimvdLinde has a habit of using the talk page just to insult me instead of focusing on the article's current matter at hand. As seen on December 12, 2010, Kim comes in with this insult out of the blue (just when I thought she'd learned to focus on articles and not me, as she finally manged to at the Sexual intercourse article's talk page a few days earlier). Kim's December 12, 2010 comment about me is blatant unprofessional-ism, especially for an administrator. She probably believes every article that I am the main editor of, and often seek discussions through before changes is "my article." Warning, kids, you cannot be the main editor of an article without getting called the owner of it by KimvdLinde and some others, despite there being a such thing as a primary contributor (which is why an article cannot be listed as a featured article candidate without the go-ahead from those editors). It's a wonder she hasn't started rejecting my edits at the Sexual intercourse article or hasn't started following me to different article talk pages just to snipe at me. But I wouldn't be surprised if she did. The Serial killer article may be next on her list. Funny that I generally work well with every editor whose edits I contest...but not her.
7. KimvdLinde twice denies that her December 12, 2010 comment was to provoke me,[27][28] when...clearly...it was.

Threats, opportunistic warnings, and more twisting of words

More by KimvdLinde:

1. Threatening to go to the noticeboard about my December 12, 2010 edits (citing WP:3RR), even ones to my own comment,[29] when even the involved editor feels the matter has long been over.[30][31] She was basically using her hatred for me to try and see to it that I got in deep water. Given the bad blood between us, she should not even have been issuing this warning at my talk page, which is why I reverted it.[32]
2. Twisting my words (on December 12, 2010) to further her "own" point of view.[33][34] But that is nothing new.