User talk:Criminologist1963

Welcome!

Hello, Criminologist1963, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! <eleland/talkedits> 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August, 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WLU (talk)

AN discussion

Note discussion WLU (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crim1963. I have noticed that some admins say: The talk page is your power. Whereas I admire your stance in debunking in real life the SRA claims in Holland, I do recommend posting your reasons in the talk pages: it's the only power that non-admins like us have in "Wikiland". Cheers. —Cesar Tort 14:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Usually, blanking the page is not a helpful way of engaging other editor you are taking issue with. I'd recommend that you revert the blanking and post anything in talk page. Instead, blanking it makes you no good in the AN discussion that's going on. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 16:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Regards this edit you left on the AN:

Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands was deleted after you blanked the page
Before your blanking, the page was a redirect, a way of resolving related topics and pages so that instead of a series of content forks (different pages about the same topics), all searches for specific material will end up in a single location. That is the purpose of a redirect. I reverted your blankings because there should be no blank pages on wikipedia (see WP:BLANK), and any reader who wanted to see the discussion of SRA in the Netherlands who typed in that search text would end up at a blank page. This is not helpful, particularly when there is a part of wikipedia that discusses SRA in the Netherlands, at the list of satanic ritual abuse allegations. The redirect links directly to the section where SRA is discussed relative to the Netherlands. One page is indeed enough, and it is found as a section of the list.
You state that my text is 'biased'. In what way? What bias is found on the page, what content is factually incorrect, what is missing and what is portrayed wrongly? Is there undue weight (WP:UNDUE) on one aspect? Does the article take a side or advance a position (WP:NPOV)? Does it make a conclusion (WP:OR)? Is it overly focussed on one area or perception of the problem (perhaps a WP:BIAS issue)? To reach a consensus version (WP:CONSENSUS) you have to discuss. We have both entered the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Let's discuss. Give specifics. Is it totally wrong? How? How can it be fixed?
Your pages were never "destroyed". I merged the content to the section of the list, and redirected to that section. Besides, it was never your page anyways. I have been very scrupulous about maintaining appropriate content at an appropriate level of detail in a way that avoids conclusions (which violates WP:NPOV) or analysis (which violates WP:OR) and maintains an appropriate level of detail (i.e. in summary style, per WP:SS) and an appropriate vocabulary, idiom and style (i.e. per WP:TONE). Everything I have done has been because of these policies. It's not spite or simply to harm wikipedia (which would be edit warring, personal attacks, harassment and vandalism respectively), it's because your edits show no awareness of these policies and consistently revert to a version that is in violation. These are not rules I make up, these are rules that the english wikipedia community has decided are sensible and appropriate. I follow them, rigorously. They are the only material that is appropriate to review when the edits are factually accurate and sourced but still contested.
I have never redirected the page to satanic ritual abuse. It has always been to a specific section of the list of statanic ritual abuse allegations that discussed the Netherlands. Others have redirected to the SRA page, several months ago when the list did not exist. Now that the list is a separate page, redirecting to the main SRA is inappropriate since there is a more refined, specific page and section that contains the same information. I know you have seen the section because you keep placing content forks in the same section, which is inappropriate according to our policy on content forks (WP:CFORK).
I admit that this is a lot to read, so perhaps you should start by reviewing the simplified ruleset first, as well as the [[WP:5P|Five pillars of wikipedia (WP:5P). But you must become familiar with wikipedia's rules or there is no way you will be able to interact with the community without running into this sort of opposition and aggravation. Please read the policies and guidelines I have pointed to - all text starting with WP: - these are shortcuts to our policies. They are important. Even just read the nutshells at the very top of the policy and guideline pages. It is quite basic, but also quite clear. WLU (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. WLU (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you are already past the fourth revert. I'll report, and see what happens. WLU (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation requested: your edits to Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands

Greetings! Reports have been made that you are disruptively editing the page titled Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands. As I see it, here are the facts around the page:

You created content specifically about abuse in the Netherlands.
Consensus among other edits was reached to merge that content into List of satanic ritual abuse allegations.
The merge was carried out, and Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands was left as a redirect.
After the merge, you have repeatedly re-created the article without discussion on why it should be a stand-alone article.

As noted above, several editors have concerns about your approach in this situation. Rather than start a report about you on the administrators' incidents board, I'm inviting you to comment on the situation. For the sake of continuity of discussion, please reply here, in this section of your talk page. I specifically ask you to address concerns about the article(s), such as what the stand-alone article adds to the encyclopedia that the section of the list does not, and what sources you've used to support the additions. Please address only the content and not the actions of other editors.

I look forward to your reply. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cliteur

Hello, Crim:

Do you think that Paul Cliteur may be notable enough to merit an article in the English wiki? If so, could you translate the lead? I'd really appreciate. —Cesar Tort 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissertations are not considered reliable sources

They would be considered self-published sources within the social sciences and humanities. I have retained the original file information for the initial source, but removed the dissertation from the reference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be so that dissertations are considered as not objective, but if that is so, than you should remove Multiple Personality Disorder in the Netherlands: A Study on Reliability and Validity of the Diagnosis too, because that book was the dissertation of Suzette Boon, one of the authors. See note 32.

Dissertation or not, the book of Boon and Draijer initiated the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Dutch media. Dissertation or not, the book of Beetstra is the only book on satanic ritual abuse in the Dutch language and because of its more than 50 pages of references concerning the United States and the Netherlands (literature, newspapers, television, internet, parliamentary history and case law) it is seen in Belgium and the Netherlands as the handbook on this topic. Therefore the book of Boon and Draijer as well as the book of Beetstra are essential, important sources. Not mentioning them would be big gap in Wikipedia's reproduction of the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Criminologist1963 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. If the dissertations are ever published as books by a scholarly publishing house, or as peer reviewed journal articles, then they can be replaced and used. Nothing is really lost anyway since the statements they were verifying were sourced to multiple publications. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]