User talk:RJR3333/Archive 1

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Age of consent are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Welcome!

Hello, RJR3333, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 20:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sky is blue" statements

There IS a rule saying that obvious statements should be sourced, especially on contentious articles. They're required to be sourced on articles about living people(so not the edit you made). I find it likely that this was just an overzealous revert on Jeff's part. I'm going to reinsert your change with a {{citation-needed}} template. If you could tell me how you know what you wrote was true, we can work on finding a source. i kan reed (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to George W. Bush appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Your edit was either not adhering to a neutral point of view, or improper use of humor in an article. Either way, it has been reverted, as neither are permitted. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Some advice

Hello, RJR3333. If you're interested in adding something about the Dora case to the Sigmund Freud article, then a source you could use is Frederick Crews' The Memory Wars. It's discussed there on pages 49-50. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Crews isn't a reliable source though he's very pov against Freud wouldn't someone else be better? --RJR3333 (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

re Bush

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at George W. Bush, you may be blocked from editing. You know you can't do this type of thing. It seems you have some good edits mixed with your bad ones. If you want to stick around here concentrate on the good ones. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what's deal with this? Here I give you an Outstanding Newcomer award and then this? Well, no matter, a lot of use started out with bumps in the road early in our career, just stop doing it it'll be left behind. If you need any assistance or mentoring or have any questions about anything, drop me a line. Herostratus (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

re Talmud

OK, I'll take a look at it. For contentious material, we want very good refs that amount to pretty close to ironclad indication that the statement the support is true. The statement could certainly be taken to read "Jews rape children (or used to, or at any rate their law allowed what we would call child rape)" so as you can imagine this'd likely be inflammatory. It it's true, no problem, but we want to be 100% sure that it's true before we say it. If there's contradictory info (say either, "It doesn't really say that, that's a misinterpretation" or "Sure, it says that, but nobody really followed it") we'd want to include that and look int--RJR3333 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)o that also. (There's been a related assertion here regarding Mohammed -- apparently he was married to a nine-year-old or something and then had (or didn't have!) sex with her soon after -- and its been pretty contentious.) We want to be be real conservative with potentially inflammatory material of this nature. Herostratus (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Chris Hansen, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edit here makes it sound as if the age of consent in America is just above 15, and that the producers of the show based their choice of age range on that. The show's producers chose this age range because it could be credibly impersonated. They based this on the most effective methods that law enforcement uses and the show was done in tandem with the local police. Your edit needs to be clarified to mention that and not suggest the age range was based on "age of consent." Do you have a citation that specifically says the show only impersonated children between the ages of 11 and 15 because the show's producers believed this age group was below the age of consent for that jurisdiction? Or that, for that jurisdiction, the age of consent started at 16? BTW, I have your page on my Watchlist so please reply here to keep the conversation on one page. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no federal age of consent. In most states the age of consent is 18, but some set it at 16 or 17. That was my point, they choose the age range because 15 is illegal in all states. Some states have an age of consent below 18 though. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, states with ages between 16 and 17 are qualified with age gaps and other conditions. And actually, no state's statute uses the term "age of consent" for sex. So using that term in regards to sex with minors in the United States is misleading. And where states use the age of 16 and 17 as a starting point it is because they are exempting sex between those of the same age, or classifying sex between someone under 18 and someone between 18 and 21 for the purpose of distinguishing between a misdemeanor and a felony. This is an example of dealing with an "age gap" and California is a good example. All the states clarify this. These laws are very detailed in that regard.

On the Federal level, the United States does not have a uniform federal law regarding a threshold for sex with minors that covers all 50 states. But there are federal statutes regarding sex with children under the age of 18, especially as relates to pornography, transporting minors for the purposes of porn, sex, human trafficking, internet porn, etc. And none of the Federal statutes use any "age of consent" language either. The edit is misleading and has no citation to back it up.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. Some states have an age of consent below 18. I'll use Indiana as an example, in Indiana a 50 year old can have sex with a 16 year old unless he works at her school or place of employment or is a foster parent according to the law. This is also the case in Georgia. If you read the text of the laws that is correct. --RJR3333 (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar42/ch4.html

I guess someone forgot to tell them that in Georgia: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278523,00.html This is a very famous case. You misunderstand the purpose of delineating the crimes in your example. I've already mentioned that all the statutes have conditions, none of which say "A 50 year old can have sex with a 16 year old." In any event, use of "age of consent" in the edit makes it appear that 1) such a thing as a statute regarding "age of consent for sex" exists in the first place, and 2) that laws in all 50 states allow that children 16 and over can "consent" to sex with adults. That is not at all true. Also, neither the States nor the Feds use any specific "age of consent for sex" language. Therefore, again, the edit is misleading, has no citation, and can be deleted. If you continue to revert it, you are edit warring.

Also, you need to learn how to respond on talk pages. You need to start indenting your replies. See WP:Talk. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said that all 50 states allow that if you read what I said SOME states allow that. If something is not classified as illegal it is by default legal.In Wisconsin and Wyoming the age of consent is 18. But in Indiana it is 16. --RJR3333 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And that girl was less than 16 she was 15. --RJR3333 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify I know that most states set the age of consent at 18 but a few set it at 16 and close in age exceptions are not a factor in any law that would be like allowing a 9 year old to have sex with a 10 year old because of their closeness in age.

Incidentally here is Georgia's law http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-3/ --RJR3333 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact I said quite clearly here that most states have an age of consent of 18 I only mentioned 2 that don't. --RJR3333 (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If we are talking about the United States, I don't know where all this "for most states, it is 18" talk is coming from, but according to Ages of consent in North America#State laws (which is sourced), "Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16." Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to bring this to a conclusion, I understand why you're angry at me but what I don't get is I would think the two articles should agree with each other and when I tried to change the article about Hansen I was told to not include that info by Malkel orwhatever his name is you just told me because the editors said its wrong. I don't know who is correct but I think its strange that wikipedia has editors with such conflicting beliefs about objective information editing the same articles. I agree with you though I'm no writer and I won't try to edit articles at all anymore. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would not object if the editors want to look through all my edits and simply delete everything I added. Because pretty much everything I wrote was shit anyway. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would rather the articles match each other regarding the age ranges as well. I was simply saying that the To Catch a Predator article shouldn't be changed based on what Malke says, unless surely justified. Sure, he provided a news source for 13-15 in Chris Hansen's article, but news sources can be wrong. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations. I believe it is wrong in this case and that the range is actually 12-15, but I'll look it up later on. However, there is nothing wrong with using "age of consent," no matter what Malke has stated. It is the way you inserted that term into the Chris Hansen article that could have been misinterpreted, at least to Malke.

Also, think about staying, as Herostratus stated in the #Now hold on section below. But also think about improving. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Will you not make edits like this after WP:Consensus has been reached? I know you check the edit history of articles. Well, in the edit history of this article some days ago, I stated, "Changed wording, per outcome shown on talk page. And extra tweak." This was the term you and Malke were debating, and I proved Malke wrong in an extensive discussion about it where every editor agreed with me. That's the end of it, and you should be pleased about it since I proved you right in using it.

On a side note, this edit is reckless. A sourced History section discussing the history of a term should not be removed simply because you don't like it or because your edits were removed from it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care enough to change it but this is not the term Malke and I were debating. We were debating age of consent not underage. I just thought saying "underage youth" seems redundant since anyone underage is obviously youth. Also the other editor said history of the laws didn't belong in the article at all but again I don't care enough to edit war over this. Also minors can refer to people below age of consent not only age of adulthood, for example in Indiana people 16 and older being sexual with people 15 and younger is called sexual misconduct with a minor even though a person isn't of full majority until 21 in Indiana.

--RJR3333 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion on the To Catch a Predator talk page; I was debating "age of consent" with Malke, just as much as you were. And in that discussion, I said the two terms are synonyms in this case. Everyone agreed with me on that, as seen in this link to the discussion at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Read what I stated in that discussion (or just some of it, since it's pretty long) for why the terms are indeed synonyms in this case. I will not be repeating all of that here. "Under the age of consent" is in the lead; it's just pipelinked (see WP:PIPELINK) under the word "underage," due to the compromise made with Malke. As for edit warring, WP:Consensus is a policy. It must be followed until new consensus is achieved. So all edit warring would have gotten you in this instance is reported. And "underage youth" isn't redundant to me, since there are youths who are not underage. Besides, those words (placed together like that) are used in plenty of reliable sources.

You are always saying "An editor said [this or that]." Well, I'm letting you know, just like I did in the case of Malke, that just because an editor says something...it does not make it right. It does not mean that you should then apply that editor's belief to other articles. For example, what is consensus at one article is not automatically consensus at another article. Such big edits like the one you made to the Ages of consent in North America article (that I just showed above) should be discussed on the talk page first. We are not supposed to go around removing sourced information simply because we don't like it, unless there is a really good reason for removing it...such as WP:SNYTH or agreement on the talk page.

And, yes, of course I know that "minors" can refer to people below the age of consent. Obviously. But To Catch a Predator was not just about impersonating minors, which is why we should be specific. Saying 12-15 is specific, but it says "usually ages 12-15." Without specifying "under the age of consent," we give the impression that the show was about "age of majority" when that was not the case at all. If it were about age of majority, then the age range shouldn't have stopped at 15. It's not like age 15 is the typical age of majority. One can say they didn't have to start the age range at 12 or 13 either, but they did go below age 12 once...and the show was not about catching people who are sexually interested in prepubescents. This is why they usually set the age range at 13 -- the age that most people have already hit puberty. But they didn't go above 15 for a reason. 16 is the age of consent in most American states. Even if we go by the "exceptions for close in age" factor, the show would have looked silly detaining a 19-year-old for corresponding with a 17-year-old, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm letting this stay as it is I'm not gonna edit war but what I did is not similiar to what Malke did. He wanted to insist the age limit was 18 or higher in every state. I was only changing the terminology to a shorter term not trying to comment on whether it was 16 or 18. So what I did is not similiar to what he did. --RJR3333 (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you had the same motive for removing the term. But you did remove "age of consent," just like Malke did in other articles...whether you saw that "age of consent" was hidden in the lead or not. I was explaining to you that this matter -- the age of consent matter -- was taken to the wider Wikipedia community and they deemed it perfectly fine to use "age of consent." I'm explaining to you that it's still used in the lead of the To Catch a Predator article...but is pipelinked under the term "underage" due to that being the compromise that was made with Malke. This is a matter of WP:Consensus (you should read that policy). Saying you're not going edit war doesn't mean much to me, because you would have been in violation of that policy and I would have reported you not only for edit warring but for that. I'm explaining to you why changing the wording to "minor" is not sufficient. "Minor" covers more than one thing, in the same way that "underage" does, which is why "underage" redirects to the Minor (law) article. But "minor" is associated with "age of majority" more than "underage" is, and is therefore inappropriate to use as a pipelink to the Age of consent article. "Underage" is more of a blanket term than "minor" is, and since it covers three main things just like that term does -- age of majority, drinking age, and age of consent -- we are supposed to specify what is meant by "underage" when we use it. All of that is why the lead is the way it is now. Flyer22 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But I didn't do that or even consider doing it, so you have no reason to be talking about reporting me. --RJR3333 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I do when you are saying you won't edit war. I was letting you know that it's not up to you, that it's not some gift you are giving me by saying "I won't edit war over it." The matter was already settled. Now you know of WP:Consensus...if you didn't already. Flyer22 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not threatened to edit war and I have not claimed I gave you a gift and now I've been citing everything and I've even added citations to things that were uncited before, I am tired of you and Malke and other editors harassing me, and I find it hypocritical when over half of some articles you edit such as the majority article are uncited and you never complained about it. --RJR3333 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about, but deciding to respond a month later after pulling your initial response is silly. Either say what you want to say then, or don't say it at all. A month after you know that I am no longer looking for your reply.

Most (and not even half) of the articles I edit are not unsourced. They are either half sourced, mostly sourced, or completely sourced. If you are going to guess, then get it right. The Age of majority article is an article I made a tweak to;[1] it is not a main article I edit. And, yes, I reverted you at the To Catch a Predator article again (and then responded[2]) because not only was your change not based in sound reasoning, it was unencyclopedic and went against consensus. Consensus I'd already achieved with Malke and other editors. Waiting a month or two, when you think no one is looking, to do what you want is not going to cut it. I was not harassing you before. I was correcting your assertions and explaining why your edits were not good. You were not listening, and only wanted to do what you wanted. Such as reverting on principle because "Malke said so." If you cannot take that kind of criticism, when it is based in sound reasoning, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

When you said my edits were "sloppy" the only inapropriate edit I made was the one to the Chris Hansen article suggesting the age of consent in the USA was 16, all my other edits were accurate and some of them were cited. And what I've done now is the opposite of what I was doing before so I don't know what you're criticizing when I simply pointed out that the impression that all sovereign states have the same age of consent of 16 is not true, that's the exact opposite of what I was criticized for before. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here you are again, responding to me all late again. I've already been clear above. You say you do not understand, and I say I'm not going over it again. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are edit warring. Please stop. I'm going to refer to an administrator.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The article on To Catch a Predator already identified them as being below legal. I don't understand, if their not below the age of consent then why are the men going to jail?--RJR3333 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to put back the edit the way I had it as it is based on the citation. The citation states that Dateline/To Catch a Predator had Perverted-Justice impersonate children between the ages of 13 and 15. Not 12 to 15. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at George W. Bush, you may be blocked from editing. Off2riorob (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Forget it I've decided I'm deleting my account because wikipedia has such contradictory information. --RJR3333 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Now hold on

I'm sorry you've having trouble and want to leave. I see, based on some of the above threads, that you've had some kerfluffles.

It's OK to make some silly edits as you're starting out. This is a lot more common than you might think as people get used to the idea that they can edit anything, and it's not a a big deal. Edit warring and so forth are part of the learning curve also. It's all OK as long as you learn from the experience. You do show talent and promise as an editor and we'd hate to lose you (providing that you do learn from any early mistakes and misunderstandings).

If you do want to leave, you could just stop editing. Per Wikipedia:Deleting an account we don't just delete accounts as we're required to keep the editing histories for copyright reasons, but see Wikipedia:Right to vanish (or Wikipedia:Clean start if you'd prefer that; I don't think that's necessary if you want to continue editing -- so you had a couple of kerfluffles, so what -- but you can if you want to).

Whether you go or stay or take a break, I wish you the best in your future endeavors. Herostratus (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I don't know why you say that pretty much all my edits were wrong. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dream

Hi -- you have a valid point that "psychoanalysis" is too narrow, but on the other hand it seems to me that "psychotherapy" is way too broad, at least given the current content of the section, which is all about Freud and the people he influenced. I wonder if there is some better way of handling this. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying psychodynamic psychotherapy might be more specific. My point was calling Jung and Adler part of psychoanalysis is not accurate. Freud wrote a whole book, The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement about why their concepts were not psychoanalysis. --RJR3333 (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that point and don't propose to go back to "psychoanalysis" -- I'm just musing about some terse way of saying "Freud and the people who he trained but who did not agree with him". "Psychodynamic" is not a term I'm familiar with. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I just separated them into Freudian and "anti-Freudian dissident" sections. But anti-Freudian isn't really a good way to say it. You might be able to come up with something better. --RJR3333 (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Fliess

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Fliess requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Touch Of Light (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Flag of Natal

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Flag of Natal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I only created the article to make a flag icon for the Second Boer War article so I could add Natal as a belligerent on Britain's side. I didn't intend for it to be permanent anyway. I know what I did was slightly inapropriate, sorry.

I reverted your edit to Pedophilia

Hello, I just reverted your recent [edit here] to Pedophilia and I just wanted to explain why. First, the link you provided as a reference went to a page about an unrelated mental illness, nothing to do with pedophilia, so perhaps you typed it in wrong or it is a page that constantly changes or something. Second, the statement is not specific enough. Who proposed this revision, when, what was the revision to, where would this apply (only in the US, everywhere?)? Would it apply to law, or only to a psychiatric diagnosis, or what? I think that it could be mentioned in another section, as opposed to the lead, with more details so it is clearer. Hope you weren't offended that I reverted the edit and I hope you can understand why and what's needed to re-include the info. Please let me know if you have any questions or anything. MsBatfish (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the link RJR3333 probably meant to add. I've addressed it at Talk:Pedophilia.[3] Flyer22 (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Proposed deletion of The Freud Reader

The article The Freud Reader has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced and no indication of WP:notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Freud Reader for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Freud Reader is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Freud Reader until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. noq (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Potato Famine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that was an error I have corrected it. --RJR3333 (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of To Catch a Predator: Protecting Your Children from Online Enemies Already in Your Home

The article To Catch a Predator: Protecting Your Children from Online Enemies Already in Your Home has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced. Only google refs are to a facebook page and here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eternal Life Through Time Travel

The article Eternal Life Through Time Travel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN book by NN author

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Great Hunger

I improved your article about The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849 and left a question for you about the Poor Law on the article talk page. — O'Dea (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, to which I have replied. — O'Dea (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Invalid copy-paste move performed

Your method of moving the Great Hunger article was invalid. You should have used the Move button (between "View History" and the search box at the top of every Wikipedia page). I shall have to request an administrator to perform a repair as you have lost the original article history in the process. Please refrain from editing the article further until the repair has been performed, to reduce the amount of labour that will be necessary.

• New article history since you performed the invalid move.
• Old article history that was lost by the incorrect move.

The old history has been disconnected from the new, because you did not transfer the old history properly; it has been lost from the article. The two must be merged now, and only an administrator has the authority to perform the repair. Please read the Wikipedia:Moving a page article for an explanation of how to perform a move, and why a copy-paste move is invalid. If you need to perform a move in future and are not confident enough to proceed, you can make a request for it to be done for you at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — O'Dea (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849

Concerning your contribution, The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license by denying attribution to editors who worked on The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849. As a violation of the page move process, The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849 needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849 may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849 has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849 or The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849 until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — O'Dea (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC) or Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy editing.

The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849 has had its lost history returned to it so you can edit the article to your heart's content. If you have any other editing questions, I can answer about things I know, although I know very little about Wikipedia administration as I have no desire to occupy that position myself. In the meantime, I can recommend learning by browsing through Wikipedia Help and I also recommend the Help Desk as a place to overcome the restraints of one's ignorance about technical matters; I have successfully learned new things by asking for help there when I cannot find what I want in the sprawling Wikipedia documentation that covers help and policies, of which there are very many. Finally, if you want mentoring specifically concerned about administration ambitions, I imagine one could proceed by approaching an actual administrator for advice about obtaining help in that area. Good luck. — O'Dea (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading before you edit

Be more careful before adding things to articles, especially to an article like the Pedophilia article (where most changes should be discussed first anyway). As I stated in this edit summary, what you added is already in that section and it is included more accurately than your addition. Hebephilia, for example, is a sexual preference for early pubescents, not just "an attraction" and to simply "pubescents." With regard to "preference," the same goes for pedophilia, seeing as it is usually defined by sexual preference, not just sexual attraction. And the proposal is all about covering pubescents who look prepubescent (either completely or mostly), hence the developmental overlap. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If you still want the bit about the "age required for a person to be able to be diagnosed with the disorder [being changed] from 16 years to 18 years" to be added, I feel that you should ask Legitimus whether it is worth a mention and how best to add it onto the already-existing text. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to state...I don't know why you decided to put the same redundant material in that section that I pointed out to you is already in that section, other than you simply wanting to be difficult. But I removed it again and left in the only part that is not redundant,[4][5][6] which is what I suggested you do by suggesting that you refer to Legitimus for how to incorporate it. I see that I was correct to refer you to Legitimus, since, for some reason...you could not add that information without adding redundant material. If it's the hebephilia age range you also want added/specified, the hebephilia age range is already made clear in the article; there is no need to specify it again.

And let me be clear: I don't care how much you hate me, or complain to answers.yahoo.com about me, all because I have often corrected you on things. Without people making such corrections, this site would be even more inaccurate and/or sloppy-looking than it already is in some parts...when it doesn't have to be. As long as you make decent, good or great edits, you won't have to deal with me often. The only reason you have to deal with me at all is because we edit some of the same articles and I am usually correcting things that need correcting on these articles. You came back to this site knowing that. I have made an effort to compromise with you on a few things since you have been back, but there are going to be things that should not be compromised on...such as adding redundancy to a section. Keep in mind that while I can find some of your actions aggravating, I do not hate you and am only trying to ensure that these articles are at their best or are at least decent. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I also went ahead and noted the required age gap, since that is very relevant. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to archive the rest.