User talk:Bittergrey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Miszabot config

Note that you've added Misza to autoarchive and set the archive counter at 2. This means Misza will have to create a second talk archive the next time it kicks in. You've got your configuration set to 70K. The size of archives doesn't really matter but the lower that number, the more archives Misza will create. I believe the informal standard is 250K but you're free to choose whatever you want. Note however, that your current archive is about 52K long, which means you'll have uneven-sized archives. I would suggest you reset the counter = field to 1 and Misza will fill up your first archive before setting up a second one. No particular reason beyond it's a bit neater and takes advantage of Misza's capabilities. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate that I'm the better Wikipedian than you. My previous suggestion to you was ignored and deleted, with the edit desc "I can just delete this without reading it"[1]. Reciprocation would only bring me down to your level. The only unknown now is whether you will leave anything for the next disgruntled waves to delete. The article I donated to and then developed at Wikipedia is actually in competition with my own website. Watching others take their aggressions out on it or threatening it as some sort of blackmail hurts Wikipedia more than it hurts me. BitterGrey (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with your Miszabot configuration. I'm just pointing out that your current configuration will result in different-sized archives, and a greater number of them. You are free to ignore this message, delete or archive it, these are just some technical feature of the bot you may not know about and implementing my suggestion would cut down on server demands a little bit. Please feel free to ignore and/or erase this section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation bot

I've updated the {{cite pmid}} citations on the page. Apparently there's a bug and you have to do it by hand now, but all of the citations are now complete. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question here, ELNO 10 and 11 would not be mutually exclusive. One can have a personal webpage on which one runs a web forum. Though Crohnie is referring to the "social networking" aspect of ELNO 10 I believe. Also, #11 alone is a reason not to link to a page. The fact that it is a personal webpage makes it likely it also contains factually inaccurate material and it certainly contains unverifiable research in the form of the surveys. Again, factual inaccuracy doesn't have to mean deliberate deception - if I give someone the wrong directions on the street I'm not necessarily lying to them, I could simply be mistaken. You may maintain the website with the best of intentions but that doesn't guarantee accuracy and it increases the likelihood you are applying your own personal preconceptions, experiences and interpretations to the information. Oversight, editorial review and peer review all attempt, albeit imperfectly, to address this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And you are discussing this here instead of limiting debate to the currently two locations because...? BitterGrey (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That sort of question is one that needs to be addressed at an individual-editor level; it's like informing someone they can't use a primary source by a user talk page posting rather than a talk page posting. It's the kind of thing most editors are familiar with, thus don't need to be informed of - but individual editors who are not aware can be made aware by a posting on their talk page that isn't relative to the discussion as a whole. I'm trying to elaborate on my points as an experienced editor while on ELN it's more an argument against policy. Meh, it's a judgement call and ELN is already quite a lengthy section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Note that there is no centralized repository dedicated to resolving disputes between User:Bittergrey and User:WLU. What you see as "starting a new fight in a new location" is simply normal editing across a related set of subjects. If you genuinely believe there is a dispute between that is personal rather than simply disagreements, bring it up at one of the dispute resolution pages. Posting a notice at WT:DAB is a normal way of soliciting external linput. The only person who sees it as the extension of a single dispute originating on a completely unrelated page is you. No-one else, including me, cares, and continuing to bring it up discourages external input - please stop it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is true that I'm only hurting myself, why do you care? I understand why you would want your efforts viewed singly, as opposed to having the pattern shown: The pattern betrays intent. BitterGrey (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Because if you can be persuaded to edit in a more appropriate way, you could be a good editor. If you persist in approaching every single disagreement as a personal dispute with no appreciation for the policies and guidelines beyond how they support your own perspective and this becomes disruptive, then a page ban or block may ensue. These interventions require evidence of good-faith efforts to try to reason with the editor. Personally I also keep hoping that you will approach the issues as topics to be discussed toward a consensus rather than a bitterly personal grudge match but since my attempts to calmly explain the policies and guidelines have to date fallen on deaf ears, I am reaching the point where I will consider it futile. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Good-faith efforts such as reading notes? I think I continue to demonstrate that I'm the better editor because I read your notes, while you deleted the last one I sent you with the edit desc "I can just delete this without reading it"[2]. That didn't seem very civil, especially now that you are here implying that I'm the one who isn't listening. BitterGrey (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering your posting on WT:MEDCOI, and later at ELN (and again at PPdd's talk page, and again at talk:adult diaper, and again at talk:infantilism, and again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation as well as your time spent at WT:MED) consisted initially of attempting to demonstrate that another editor was unjustifiably persecuting you (when all that is happening is a routine effort to resolve disagreements between editors), I held little hope for your comment being useful. Editors should inform other editors they are being discussed when it is substantive, such as an administrator's noticeboard posting, or a user request for comment. You are not expected to drop a note on someone's page every single time their name comes up. I repeatedly praise the work of TimVickers and SandyGeorgia for being excellent - but I don't let them know about it because no-one cares. Similarly, I've both defended and criticized PPdd's edits on various talk pages, and he wasn't involved in some and wasn't informed in any - because no-one is talking about blocking, banning or anything else important. If someone were discussing doing something about your behaviour, then a note to you on your talk page is appropriate. Since my sole comment about you on PPdd's talk page was a throwaway comment in the context of trying to make an editors' contributions create less drama, I thought and still think you're over reacting. You seem to see persecution everywhere, and seem to think everyone is going to leap to your defence. They won't. You'll turn away contributors and ensure you don't get the neutral review of edits that is being sought. Note how my initial comment at ELN was a brief, neutral summary of the issues including why I thought the ELs were inappropriate. Notice how my initial post at DAB was a brief, neutral request for a comment. Yours, in contrast, brought in two completely unrelated pages. WAID didn't remove the external links, and didn't suggest they be removed. The removal of two clearly inappropriate external links didn't start at WT:MEDCOI. Your response included no reference to policy or guideline, linked to a completely unrelated section of a draft user essay and your next reply reiterated the same complaint (which boils down to - an editor disagreed with me on a different page on a different topic about a different set of issues totally unrelated to external links). I'm dumbfounded that you think anyone at ELN cares about any of the edits you cite, and even if they did, ELN is not the place to raise them. Frankly, I doubt anyone would care if I was simply motivated to "get" you, so long as my edits were substantiated by reference to policy or guideline. That you escalate simple editing (such as what I undertook at paraphilic infantilism, adult diaper and infantilism - removing clearly inappropriate ELs, an unreliable source and refactoring a DAB page to the best of my understanding of MOS:DAB) to some sort of personal dispute or vendetta is not only a terrible habit with a corrosive effect on civility and good faith, it's actively interfering with the ability to get real work done in addition to alienating contributors. Make no mistake - my edits to all these pages were unambiguous improvements in all cases, and I can only see your objections to them being based on a lack of familiarity with wikipedia. That's why I take the time to leave posts like these ones on your talk page with a generous sprinkling of links to policy and guideline pages.

Now, regarding talk:infantilism - I hope to get some input from the DAB wikiproject and am content to wait because I am uncertain of the actual rules in this case particularly since the page lacks a clear primary meaning (it's unlikely infantilism will ever be anything but a DAB page because you can't do much with the unmodified term except define it, and wikipedia is not a dictionary). Your claim of copyright violation is wrong, my definition was not a direct quote from dictionary.com (which would require attribution of the quote) but for one thing it's a general definition which doesn't come from one authoritative source, and for another DAB pages do not need, and shouldn't have references. My definition doesn't even line up with the dictionary.com definition that precisely since I was aiming to keep it short. Your comment about plagiarism is equally wrong since again, dictionary.com doesn't hold exclusive rights to a general definition. Second, dictionary.com doesn't include infantilism as a paraphilia at all - none of the definitions focus on sexual behaviour, it's all about adolescent physical or behavioural characteristics. Reference works carry far more weight than just google hits in my mind - so the dictionary definition would come first, followed by the medical examples in a common sense order. Again, this isn't a simple page where MOS:DAB can unfold in a logical way that I can understand. I realize I asked a question about the CC license for that PhD thesis, which is a genuine concern - it's the first thing mentioned at WP:ELNEVER. For you to bring it up at a totally unrelated page where WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:PLAGIARISM don't apply at all, then point it out, just looks like you're trying to get revenge. Finally, what the interwikis redirect to doesn't matter as this is English wikipedia. If the interwikis are wrong, they should be corrected rather than perpetuating the error here. Disambiguation is also highly language specific - the whole point of a DAB page is that the same word or phrase can have different meanings and that would very much depend on the language used. I've looked on google books regarding diaper fetishism, and couldn't find any specific mention that it was synonymous with infantilism. The diaper fetishism page itself doesn't make this link - in fact, it makes a point of saying diaper fetishism isn't related to paraphilic infantilism. I'll be making some of these points at talk:infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"...and again at PPdd's talk page, and again at talk:adult diaper, and again at talk:infantilism, and again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation ... consisted initially of attempting to demonstrate that another editor was unjustifiably persecuting you (when all that is happening is a routine effort to resolve disagreements between editors), I held little hope for your comment being useful." Those comments were posted _after_ you deleted my note. Using them as support for the deletion of my note suggests that you are psychic, or trying to justify a prejudice to some party whom you don't think will check facts.

As for routine, our only "edit war" involved my removing your repeated[3][4] violation of wp:copyvio and wp:plagiarism. (edit: this comment was based on WLU's claim that a particular definition was "taken from dictionary.com"[5] This claim was later shown to be untrue.) I do hope that is not your usual routine. BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they simply confirmed my initial belief was correct and you are indeed approaching every edit as if it were a personal grudge against you. If your belief is that including a definition on a DAB page is a copyright violation, your misunderstanding of copyright is so grossly incorrect I don't know where to start. If that's your reason why you've removed the definition, I've got nothing to say to you.

You can underline text by adding <u></u> tags around charactes. This is only for talk pages though, you're not supposed to do it on main pages because it's a distraction for those looking for hyperlinks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You clearly stated that the definition was "taken from dictionary.com"[6]. If this statement were true, it would be both copyvio and plagiarism. Having looked through dictionary.com again, I realize that your statement might not have been true. I'm pretty sure there is something in Wikipedia that says that knowingly making false statements is not good. Would you like to retract your comment that one or more of these are routine for you? BitterGrey (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you really think it's a serious copyright violation or plagiarism that places the legal standing of wikipedia or my credibility of as an editor in jeopardy, then raise the point at the appropriate page. Copyright violations are indeed a serious matter, and should be taken seriously. This isn't one. I can be blocked for repeatedly including a copyright violation on a page, so go somewhere else, raise the point, and see if any admins want to address this. I did indeed state that, I did indeed go to dictionary.com, yourdictionary.com, and wiktionary to check the definitions and its uses. I even used google's define:infantilism search feature to check it against several other sources. At no point during my placement of the definition did I make any attempt to indicate on the main page where I got my definition. I will argue against and edit to remove such indications in the forms of references or external link. I don't think this requires attribution in any shape or form, and I think this is uncontroversial at wikipedia. There's full disclosure of my blatant, willful efforts to include a valid dictionary definition on a disambiguation page. Go ahead, see if it gets me in any trouble. I doubt it will, because I doubt your interpretation of the plagiarism and copyright policies are flatly wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"I doubt your interpretation of the plagiarism and copyright policies are flatly wrong." Please remember that you are dealing with someone who, unlike some, actually reads notes. Here we agree: I too think my interpretation of the plagiarism and copyright policies are correct. BitterGrey (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're not willing to pursue it in any meaningful way, then please drop both the accusation that I am engaging in serious contraventions of important policies with significant legal implications and any suggestion that it should affect the editing of the page. Also, please replace the definition at infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall writing that I wasn't going to pursue this. Maybe I'm being patient, maybe I'm hoping you will settle down, or maybe I'm giving you enough rope to hang yourself with. On the subject of accusations, ELNO2 reads "Any site that misleads the reader", and you have repeatedly asserted that it applies to my website(eg.[7][8]). Integrity and accuracy are important to me. Please support or retract your accusation that I am misleading readers. If you continue to make unfounded accusations against me, you might start to become unwelcome on my talk page. BitterGrey (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're using plagiarism and copyright as a reason to leave the definition off the page, then do it or replace the definition and stop wasting my time. You've either never read, or never understood my point about ELNO#2. Not that it matters since there is no support for including the link to your personal website. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the definition, a third opinion has been offered. You can choose to accept it, or continue arguing with everyone because you (alone) want a definition.

Regarding ELNO#2, what part of "Any site that misleads the reader" do you think I am unclear on? Please note that while ELNO#2 is grounds for excluding a link, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not. Of course, JUSTDONTLIKEIT also would not have been a personal accusation, just as ELNO#11 (personal website) is not. And no, whether ELNO #11 applies or not does not support your accusation that ELNO #2 applies. Please support or retract your accusation that I am misleading readers. If you continue to persist in unfounded accusations against me, you will become unwelcome on my talk page. BitterGrey (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, followed the process and got a response, so no definition. Since you are not capable of understanding my reasoning on your EL despite many explanations, I'm not wasting time on that either. Your website should not appear anywhere on wikipedia, that's the consensus, so the problem is solved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So do you retract your accusation that my website violates ELNO #2, that I'm misleading readers? Please don't try to claim consensus support in this, since none exists. If you continue to persist in unfounded accusations against me, you will become unwelcome on my talk page. BitterGrey (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Hi, this is to remind you that you have been asked in this thread to stop attacking editors. Please remember no personal attacks and civil policies. Please, no further comments about editors. Please keep your comments to be about edits and not editors. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, in the phrase "puppetlike foible," (the foible was pointed out here[9]) "puppetlike" refers to the foible (the edit) not the editor. Again, let's stick to the facts. After you wrote "there is a social networking club available on the site [ Understanding.Infantilism.Org ]for people to get together"[10] I asked you for the URL of this club[11]. WLU responded about what you meant, but didn't provide a URL[12]. A unique property of non-puppets is independent thought. Crohnie, explain your independent thought process, leading up to your conclusion that ELNO#10 applies to Understanding.Infantilism.Org and you'll show that you aren't a puppet. Since real people make mistakes, it doesn't even have to be right, just independent. BitterGrey (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome. I thought that the previous situation was frankly ridiculous. As for the double redirects, they were all my fault (due to my page moves on the talk archives), so I had to clean them up. Graham87 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And I've just removed the duplicate link to archive 1 on your talk page. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 06:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks. BitterGrey (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

JC

Please make no comments whatsoever on JC's talk p. The explanation is at [13] DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Note

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paraphilic infantilism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tried talk pages(eg. [14][15][16][17][18]) and third opinion requests[19] to try to resolve this conflict. WLU responded by modifying the third opinion request to claim that this was a "Disagreement about reference formatting". Afterwords, he claimed a non-formatting issue at RSN[20] and then ANI[21]. I suspect that neither of his contradictory claims describe his real issue. BitterGrey (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My initial concern was, as I said, purely about formatting sources - should there be one reference to the DSM incorporating six pages (with ref name =), or three incorporating different sets of the same pages, and should the {{sfn}} template be used. After reviewing a hardcopy of the DSM-IV-TR it became apparent that it did not verify the text it was attached to, so I removed it. That left only the SFN question in my mind. I brought up the DSM question at the RSN because you disagreed with my belief that the DSM was misused. The RSN conclusion supported my interpretation. Since you continued to edit war to misuse a source in paraphilic infantilism and the list of paraphilias, I brought it up at ANI. That is how I see this set of disputes. If you can change the consensus on the use of the DSM, I will respect it, but so far nobody agrees with you and therefore my edits are justified. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So basically, WLU, you admit that you started edit warring over sources you hadn't checked? BitterGrey (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be criticising me for actually reading a source. I trused, per WP:AGF, that the source verified the citation. When I found that it didn't as part of my efforts to clarify and improve the referencing of the DSM, I removed them. What exactly have I done wrong? The DSM was inappropriately used, so I removed it. Upon re-reading the relevant section of the DSM, I replaced the content it did source, that masochists sometimes exhibit infantilist behaviour. The fact that it also removed a point of dispute was certainly helpful and I for one was happy there was at least one fewer issue to disagree over. I've added citations, removed unsourced material, sought outside input and adjusted the page according to that input. I have certainly made mistakes, then corrected them. If you're criticizing me for not being perfect then you are out of line. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I'm all for checking sources BEFORE edit warring over them. As for AGF, this also should have assumed that the person who was familiar with the references specified the citation correctly. To qualify 'before,' I'll point out that WLU's first attempt to obscure the references was in February.

Now again WLU, do you admit that you started edit warring over sources you hadn't checked? BitterGrey (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I did AGF, it turns out the person who originally cited the source was wrong. This is a wiki, errors can and should be corrected as soon as they are noticed. My edit warring over the DSM citations was over formatting, not content. Since the content was wrong, it rendered essentially all of them moot. Had I noticed in Feburary that the DSM was being misused, I would have made my corrections then.

We've both been edit warring. I'm not demanding you state that you are edit warring over the inappropriate citation of the DSM, I am simply asking you to acknowledge the consensus at the RSN and abide by it - and overall I'm asking that you abide by the general policies and guidelines of wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One of those policies prohibit forumshopping: There was already a third opinion request open BEFORE you raised the issue at RSN, and before the invitations went out for allies to join you[22]. BitterGrey (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

F&B and CB&B

Hi, I've posted this at Talk:Paraphilia. It's the only moderately interesting bit and relates to the interpretation of "infantilsm" in those articles.

Please specify exactly where CBB defines which group in the FB paper are the infantilists. Is it only one group? More than one? All?

Ans: all infantilists; they do not differentiate or define. The question is what is an infantilist for F&B and CB&B?

"Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic [internalisation of target of attraction] as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (CB&B, 2009:531)

They define infantilists as those who, "are sexually aroused by behaving or imaging themselves as children or infants." They refer to a further group who "wear diapers while masturbating" and state that it is unknown whether they are hiding imagery of self as baby from clinicians or whether they represent an incomplete form of infantilism as transvestites do of transexualism.

Ah. I think I see. This took a little while. But if you read their entire description of infantilism and its associated behaviours and desires they do not include any practices which might be considered masochistic. Also bear in mind Cantor's statement at the RSN that he had never come across a masochistic infantilist in his clinical experience. In my opinion - which is irrelevant but anyway - they are excluding masochists who happen to dress up and/or imagine themselves as babies as they do not see that as entailing an inversion of sexual targeting. Rather "masochistic gynaephiles" have, they assert, a different etiology whose resemblance to those with an ETLE is only "superficial" as their "abberant" self-image is derived from a desire for a relationship of submission to a dominant female. Hence, F&B's paper treats "masochistic gynaephiles" as distinct from infantilists proper. Implicitly, CB&B are advancing their own ETLE theory as a greater organising principle of the paraphilias than a categorisation based upon an attraction for any particular object or whatever.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow, while I can't really see how it could be included in the article, I'd be interested in your opinion of this interpretation.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I hadn't before noticed that you and WLU both use the British spelling of "behaviour."

As for your interpretation, there isn't that much I can say. Any arbitrary sexologist can make up an arbitrary set of terms and categories, and advance them as some new discovery, at about any time he wishes. Unless it has some etilogical significance, such as noting an overrepresentation of Attwood's "cluster of four" among AB/DLs, all that discovery can hope to do is to convey the variety of paraphilias with a reasonable accuracy given the system's complexity. Depending on the interpretation, F&B is more complicated than the DSM, less accurate, or both. BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't commenting on the veracity of the theory but thanks for the reply. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

( Removed 3RR template posted by an editor who himself gamed 3RR ([23][24][25][26] -28 hrs) during this conflict. Sure he'll argue that others support his position, but if this were true, why the need to game 3RR? ) BitterGrey (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You know that both myself and FB object to the removal of these sources. Your claims and comments have achieved no support, and Cantor's hypothesis is not a fringe theory. Stop removing it on the basis of your personal preference. Slow edit wars are still edit wars. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might wish to read that notice yourself. You aren't even willing to be reasonable about the spelling of 'behaviors', but thought it necessary to force your own preferred spelling ("behaviours") [27].

As is clear from the discussions on that talk page, I'm the one who is engaging in discussion, and have clearly shown that Wikipedia policy supports the removal that fringe theory. You are the one who is edit warring, prejudicially dismissing my input as somehow prejudiced: "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading." On your talk page, you justified it with a position best summarized as 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian': "...he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned.". Were the real problem one of my editing practices, viewpoints, etc., I would have the option of changing and the problem would go away. You didn't see this as an option, which shows that you know the real problem is not me.

You never did answer my question about whether or not paraphilic infantilism was the "some podunk little nonsense article" that you've been "fucking around on". This does not sound like editing in good faith.

You've been warring at paraphilic infantilism on and off since February, even when the only fight you could pick was with a bot[28]. Clearly, both Yobot and I have the same problem. My regret is that I don't have the time machine that would be necessary for one of your other accusations to be true. If I did, I would have greatly enjoyed setting the WLU who fought to cite 47 pages of the DSM, the WLU who fought to cite 5 pages of the DSM, and the WLU who fought to cite only one sentence of the DSM against each other. This would have freed up good-faith editors like myself to do something useful, as opposed to having to deal with the three disruptive WLUs sequentially. BitterGrey (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Harmonized spelling of behaviour throughout. If you genuinely believe there is a problem with my edits, you are welcome to bring it up at any of the various venues available. Otherwise I have no reply to your comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. The American spelling is used in, for example, the second sentence: "Behaviors may include drinking from a bottle or wearing diapers." It is also spelled "behavior" in thirteen other locations in the article. You aren't fighting for consistency, you are edit warring to assert your version. BitterGrey (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that my edit was to remove the "u" from four instances of "behaviour" in the article so the American spelling is now used throughout? The exceptions are for proper names of journal articles which use the British spelling. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Had you permitted even one teeny tiny part of my edit, when I changed one one single word from the British to the American spelling to stand, that would have been an exception to your pattern. But no, you reverted it. Assume good faith demands that we at least consider the input of others. You didn't. You reverted quickly and perhaps thoughtlessly. Only after I pointed out how bad this made you look did you decide to change your version in this trivial way. You weren't fighting for consistency, or for any other Wikipedia ideal, you are edit warring to assert your version. BitterGrey (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Question - are you planning on continuing to imply or outright state your belief that my actions are solely motivated by malice and personal dislike of you and/or paraphilic infantilists in general rather than a dedication to the mores, policies and guidelines of wikipedia? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. No defense for your actions, just a question about whether I will continue stating the obvious. Perhaps you are seeking another quote for the list of accusations you've been preparing since spring.

If the article must use the American spelling, you were wrong to revert my change towards the American spelling. If either American or British is acceptable, then you were wrong to revert me, as you should have assumed good faith. If the article must use the British spelling, your later edit was wrong. Wikipedia guidelines and policies did not change between the two edits. Your revert was not driven by the content of the edit. This suggests that it was driven by the editor making the edit.

By the way, the fringe theory I was discussing was Blanchard's (or Freund and Blanchard's). I'm not sure what "Cantor's hypothesis" you might think or wish this was about. A persistent lack of familiarity with the content combined with persistent edit warring suggests a true motivation unrelated to the content.

On your talk page, you summarized your efforts as, and I quote, "fucking around on some podunk little nonsense article."[29]. Please feel free to clarify this. I'm open to the possibility that you were referring to one of your other conflicts at some other Wikipedia article that just happened to be going on at the same time as this one. You do seem to be involved in a lot of them.

In February, when I tried to get you to limit your efforts involving me to just the page where this conflict started, you deleted my comments with the edit note "I can just delete this without reading it". Even more recently, you have stated that you are still ignoring me: "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading.". While ignoring me, you have taken it upon yourself to load up my talk page with quite a lot of valueless text. Given this, I'd like to ask you for a response to my question: Was paraphilic infantilism that "some podunk little nonsense article"? If not, which Wikipedia article was it?

Answer this, WLU, or consider yourself unwelcome on my talk page. Perhaps it is time I treat your comments on my talk page the same way you treated my comments on yours. BitterGrey (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bounty

Bittergrey, I have stumbled across your "work", if you will, over the past few years and have a tangential interest in your field of research as it relates to theories of transexualism. I won't give you my take on how this theory and the strong negative reaction from those affected by it relates to your subject of interest, as I would like you to form your own opinions about the subject matter, but I am of the opinion that there is a connection here insofar as motivation affects perception. Furthermore, have you considered offering a bounty for the wikipedia article on your subject of interest? It seems about as good a way as any other to elevate your subject matter of interest beyond its current "fringe" status.KlappCK (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have been a misunderstanding. While I donated most of the material for the article's restart, my own views on infantilism have had little influence in the article over the years. The article has been based on the DSM and a range of other sources. Until recently, that is.

The fringe spinoff of Blanchard's theory of transsexualism contradicts the DSM: One categorizes infantilism as masochism, the other as pedophilia. I consider Blanchard's theory to be junk science. It would be as meaningful to argue that a love of carpentry is related to the desire to transform oneself into a tree. Both involve wood, after all. Less the obscurity and irresponsibly small sample sizes, this is what the theory boils down to. Currently, it is present in three places in the article because of an effort by a few Wikipedians to remove references to the DSM and insert it. At least one in this group, James Cantor, is on the payroll of Blanchard's facility. The others didn't seem to have any interest in the infantilism article until after I became involved in debates that related to Blanchard's coworkers and facility. Most recently, it was my opposition to the deletion of the androphilia and gynephilia. Prior to that, it was my involvement in a discussion on conflicts of interest in medicine.

The fringe theory being debated is one that I believe - per the Wikipedia policy on fringe theories - does not merit a place in Wikipedia. BitterGrey (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand me, I was referring more to persons like Stanley Thornton Jr. (from Taboo), and Riley Kilo (from My Strange Addiction) who consider their practices an aspect of their personal identity, much in the same way that transexual persons do. Is it possible that part of the stigma surrounding infantilism is that people tend to assume that it is inherently (and, more importantly, only) sexual in nature, which may not always be the case? Perhaps, if there were more people who made public this "lifestyle choice", for lack of a better word, like Andrea James has her transexuality, for example, conceding that sex reassignment surgery (to be more like the desired sex) is much more permanent than, say, wearing a foley catheter (to simulate incontinence) or whatever else a person into diapers might do, then this lifestyle would be more readily accepted. Do you understand my meaning?KlappCK (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It may not be evident from this note, but an accusation has been made that some of your edits were considered less than civil. If you would like to refute those claims, please see the special page. Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I fear that WLU making accusations about me is hardly news. He has expressed the determination that my troubles on Wikipedia won't stop until I leave or he gets me banned[30]: "he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned." My regret is that I don't have the time machine that would be necessary for one of his other accusations to be true. If I did, I would have greatly enjoyed setting the WLU who fought to cite 47 pages of one resource in a particular article, the WLU who later fought to cite 5 pages of the same resource in that same article, and the WLU who still later fought to cite only one sentence in only one place of that very same article against each other. That would have freed up myself and other good Wikipedians to make improvements. (His explanation was that he fought to cite 47, and then 5, before reading the source.) Yes, the sounds absurd, but I can provide difs for everything if anyone cares.)

On his own talkpage, he joked that he was "fucking around on some podunk little nonsense article."[31] Since he was involved in multiple edit conflicts at the time, there is no way to know which he was referring to. Perhaps he is being even more disruptive to other editors on other articles. BitterGrey (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't notice my user name was not included in the talk page section when you retitled it. My apologies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So yet another of WLU's countless accusations has been shown false.

WLU, your apology is meaningless unless it comes with an intent to change. Your most recent revert of my edit, without any attempt at discussion, shows that no intent is present. It demonstrates that the only thing that matters to you is getting your way. BitterGrey (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Check You Archives...

Bittergrey, I replied to a thread I had started that is now in your archives, check my history and reply, if you will, at your convenience.KlappCK (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this discussion[32]. I accept that I might have misunderstood you. If you'll review the exchange that took place between our prior exchange and this one, you'll see WLU making accusations against me to a wikiquette board[33]. These accusations were based on an assumption of ill. The accusations were shown false, and the issue swept under the carpet. In response to false accusations and assumptions of ill will, the wikiquette board did nothing.

I have invested a great deal of time and content into Wikipedia. At one time I had hoped to improve it as a resource. However, the articles that I invested in became merely targets for those seeking revenge against me. One of these people is known to be on the CAMH payroll, after initially trying to hide his conflict of interest as MariontheLibrarion. Another, WLU, has yet to confirm or deny a conflict of interest, but heavily promotes CAMH interests and only bothers me after CAMH-related debates. Wikipedia appears content to be bought by CAMH and other interests.

Is there any reason to think that my additional investment of cash will not be similarly abused? BitterGrey (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I had confused things by making the initial thread about two subjects. I had just created bounties for the absolute value function, sign function, and Dirac delta function, and was moderately enthusiastic about the results, so I presented that suggestion as an aside. For the record, that I had suggested a link between two subjects for which your edits had been disputed was coincidental. I was merely suggesting a possible link that I had considered after stumbling upon both of those subjects over a short period of time. That said, from what I have gathered from some of the edit conflicts in which you have been engaged in the past, I tend to side with your arguments over that of your detractors and empathize with how you must feel, although I must emphasize that I am not interested in joining in on that discussion. You might have noticed from my edit history that I have been the subject of what was, in my opinion, undo criticism over edits linking incontinence to fictional characters as well as a few BLPs. It is disconcerting to have your ideas and edits rejected because of perceived personal interest (or lack thereof by others) in the subject matter based upon previous work on (or, in your case, on and off) Wikipedia.KlappCK (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

KlappCK, thank you for your sympathy. I understand your disinterest in getting involved in this mess. I respect your faith in Wikipedia, even though others have not extended assumptions of good faith to some of your edits. BitterGrey (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Cantor et al's theories are not fringe theories, and your claims on the talk page convinced nobody. Please stop editing towards you preferred version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Still more accusations from WLU, no more substantial than the last - which he had to retract[34]. No wonder any neutral editors have been driven away. Maybe someday he'll read the sources and realize that they aren't Cantor's theories. (The distortions might be Cantor's, but the fringe theory he is trying to refer to is from coworkers Freund and Blanchard.

WLU, please stop edit warring to enforce your own personal version.BitterGrey (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard

Note my comment here. If you genuinely want resolution on these points - leave my editing hisotry out of it. Make your best case without claiming any motivation on my part or including any diffs to either my mainspace or talk space edits. Nobody is going to engage, and in particular nobody will answer these questions, if you claim it's all because of my personal motivation - which is irrelevant anyway. Either your points stand based on the policies and guidelines, or they do not. My edits don't matter. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just acknowledge that you've waffled again. Besides, you are the one maintaining a massive list of accusations going back to February.[35] BitterGrey (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed the comments on Jan 6 in the talk p for Paraphilia. Please keep to discussing the issues involved in editing this article at hand, not the behavior of anyone elsewhere. You expressed yourself the realization that you might be very close to the boundary for NPA. Your judgment was correct, so you are--in fact, you are on the other side of it. I recognize the difficulty of criticizing the scientific work of someone who is a WP editor without at the same time criticizing him as a Wikipedia editor, but it is a difference you must make. The basic principle is to find ways to avoid mentioning the name: if you want to discuss the ideas in a paper, link to it, and discuss the ideas, not the author. You acknowledge in that talk page that you objections are "largely about his attempts to rewrite the Karen Franklin article on Wikipedia." It will help to discuss the article at hand, not other articles. If you wish to discuss that article, I acknowledge the overall difficulty: there are a few topics where I could not edit and still be confident I would maintain a judicious attitude, so I deal with them by not editing them. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That page was an easily verifiable list of diffs, what SPECIFIC "attacks" are you reacting to? BitterGrey (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, I think you really need to get your facts straight before going around and calling for deletions. For starters, I was on wikibreak much of January: I didn't make ANY comments on Jan 6th. As for Karen Franklin, I wrote no such thing. This would be clear if you had provided diffs to what you said that I said. Diffs keep us grounded in what really happened. I think you need to accept that list of diffs as history, not as some attack. BitterGrey (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

as you see below. I accept the principle that if my objectivity is challenged, I will let others deal with the matter, And I apologize, that I should first have inquired your intentions before doing the deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Challenged? You stated non-neutrality back in 2011[36]. (That was about the time you "banned" me, remember?) Now, are you going to retract or substantiate your growing list of diffless insinuations? Local to here, there is your claim that "You acknowledge in that talk page that you objections are 'largely about his attempts to rewrite the Karen Franklin article on Wikipedia.'" I wrote no such thing. If you can't keep you facts straight, as is expected from every Wikipedian, then perhaps you should step down as an admin.

I know you played a role in the events documented in that list of diffs. Perhaps no one cares what you did back in 2008, but people should care about what you are doing now.BitterGrey (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion

User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion, a page you substantially contributed to, 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:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural history of the buttocks#Buttocks fetishism/Buttocks eroticism

Open to commenting on the above? 31.193.138.200 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrea James

Bittergrey, Hi. There is an ongoing controversy at the Andrea James page that you might want to comment on. I'm mentioning this to you as you've taken some interest in the article in the past. Luwat (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at paraphilic infantilism

Your recent editing history at paraphilic infantilism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong as usual. You are the one at 3RR WLU, and the one who attempted an edit war instead of engaging in conversation. BitterGrey (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

[37]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Bittergrey. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism

Please watch out for the 3 reverts rule. I think this long-standing edit war between you and WLU should be brought before a third party. So regarding the section above, have you already tried dispute resolution for the article? I will also inform WLU of this opportunity. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll give 3O another try. Last time I tried 3O, WLU hijacked it [38] and forumshopped to AN/I, where his buddies could dominate the discussion. One was even unclear on who started what discussion, and accused me of forumshopping there[39].BitterGrey (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What Darkness Shines said below. Good luck. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, although sadly, this will probably be more a matter of edit count than luck. BitterGrey (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paraphilic infantilism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already requested a 3O, filed a second SPI on WLU's second wave of IPs, and updated the AN3 listing. Anything else I should do? BitterGrey (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, you will end up blocked. Let the SPI run it's course. I am looking into this as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the most favorable outcome from SPI #2 was already seen in #1: clearly socks. If there is any downside to engaging in sockpuppetry, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps vested editors really can get away with anything. Also, please don't threaten me: I'm just a volunteer here who has endured WLU's year-long wikihounding for over a year, including his threats of an RFC/U posting starting 23 March 2011 and a separate AN/I posting since 15 December 2011‎. In the end, I got tired of enduring his threats and raised the issue myself. The result was the same as from SPI #1 ... nothing happened. BitterGrey (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you, I just know some trigger happy admin will slap a block on you I will look over your claims later on, if I see anything untoward I will file a complaint myself. Don't let the buggers grind you down. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)