User talk:Legitimus/Archive 1

Abuse

Not sure where else to put this, but I had to know and I keep looking into this. You recently responded to my posts in the CSA article saying that it was from a trauma surviver, but a link here: http://www.dolland.net/loveline/forum/people/narcissus/messages/61965.html suggests that it was asked to be said intentionally maybe just as a sick joke? I know this isn't anywhere near a reliable citation but I was wondering what you think. --66.253.36.46 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in knowing that the clip no long even has that part in it. Someone is manipulating it. Note that in spite of you having apparently originally posting it as of 01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC), it now says it was uploaded today. --66.253.36.46 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't leave me hangin, Legitimus. I'd kill to know. ;) --66.253.36.46 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Handlebars

I see your hard work on the article has been reverted by User:Rau J. Would you mind certifying/seconing my RFC on his reverts here? ---> [1]. Thanks. JeanLatore (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer

So I'm wondering, is there possibly an 'objective scientific practise' form of activism? Lol. I find often that in many issues that conclusion-sided activism is so frequent and extreme that it often attacks the middle ground who has taken no stance, either pressuring them into conforming or scaring them off into the hands of their opposition. I guess that's why I just got in the habit of thinking 'activism' in regards to some kind of stance, but in reality it refers to a kind of stance-taking on the basis of assumption rather than proper practise. In this way do you think it would be called non-activism or anti-activism? In this way, it is in some way removed from pro and anti activism in a way where they are more similar to each other than someone not engaging in it is. It's kind of interesting how sometimes, a stance that is often perceived as being in the middle of or between two stances, is in a way more removed and different from those two than they are from each other.

By the way, I am curious, I noticed you've been contributing for more than a couple years now yet only have talk page from this year. It made me curious if that is really when communications began, or if you have been possibly archiving old talk page somewheres? I've been doing that a lot lately on a yearly basis tending to keep only the most recent month's topics, I find it makes reading a lot easier. Tend to delete spaces ahead of time too as it is more pleasing to look at. Tyciol (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sending the msg to each other's is fine it makes it easier to know replies and stuff. I guess you're right about the label, although I do think scientists often do their research with the aim of finding things that change stuff (like how people look for cures) I think they just take efforts to follow the facts and do the science rather than to make science up to support a prior conclusion or desire which is bad science. But anyway, what I was talking about isn't necessarily falling into 'changing stuff' but more like just actively trying to promote biasness in discussion, as in keeping things on track with science. As in, not trying to change perceptions or anything but only pointing out bad ones which aren't based in science, which I don't think really falls under the label. It's kinda like... how some science guys put out websites on certain topics to help dismiss misconceptions about what science says or the reality of trends compared to what people think trends are. I'm not sure what they call them, informative websites or whatever. Tyciol (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sildenafil

Could you provide citations for your edits to sildenafil, in particular for the claim that its combination with amyl nitrite is potentially fatal? JFW | T@lk 12:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The drug is contraindicated for persons taking many types of nitrates. What essentially happens is the blood pressure experiences a massive drop from the two drugs, most often resulting in a person passing out, but there is a chance in illicit usage (which tends to have a much higher dose) to cause the BP to drop so low it results in cardiac arrest or stroke. I have placed the reference, which was already in the article, but covers several points.Legitimus (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought this an interesting question and don't know if anyone has researched it: People take sniffable nitrites because of their effect on the body, presumably by affecting blood pressure. If sildenafil enhances this effect, then logically someone ought simply to take less of the nitrite to compensate. Is it the case that that sniffing nitrites is inherently safe, or merely that the dangerous dose changes when under the effects of sildenafil, so in reality the danger would be that users do not realise they only need a smaller dose, rather than that the effects are qualitatively different? Drug interactions necessitating changes in dose are hardly unusual in many cases. Sandpiper (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. The effect is synergistic. In lay terms, that means the net effect is greater than the sum of the two drugs taken separately; they interact and react with each other. Compounding the danger of this is when a person is taken these drugs illegally without a prescription, even "taking less" is not exactly a precise chemically measured standard that at chemist would be advising they to take.Legitimus (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's right, I don't understand. What I am unsure of is whether anyone else understands exactly the nature of this synergistic interaction. It is not clear to me whether inhaled nitrites can kill by themselves if taken in large quantities, particularly by the risk groups normally specifically referred to. I suspect that they can. Normally such drugs are taken in very uncontrolled situations, where you may just have to walk into the room and breath normally to get an effect (which, in fact, is sometimes the politically correct instructions on the bottle). What I am saying is that while I have seen the health warning many times, I have never seen a detailed explanation of exactly the nature of what is happening to make it especially dangerous. The obvious explanation is that sildenafil inhibits the mopping up of nitrites, so they will continue to have an effect for longer and more powerfully. Sandpiper (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot of chemistry to explain, but here goes: There is a substance it our bodies called cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) which plays a part in vasodilation (blood vessels get wider). A PDE5 inhibitor, like viagra, prevents this substance from degrading, while nitrites causes the amount to increase. More cGMP being produced plus no natural getting rid of it, and your vessels become very dialated. This drops your BP dramatically, and your out, and potentially dead. Does this happen every time? No, it depends on the dose of either substances and matters like general vascular health of the person and if they are on other drugs. I'm not a pharmacist though so I can't chart the exact measurements out.Legitimus (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine and pretty much how I understood it already. People are already warned against taking viagra to the point where it causes permanent erection, which I presume equates to total suppression of reuptake of the chemicals causing the erection. Under such circumstances similarly introducing a drug which causes a dramatic drop in blood pressure, which becomes permanent rather than ordinarily temporary, is obviously dangerous. But on the other hand, in circumstances of less than complete reuptake supprssion, it might be viewed as a benefit. Less inhaled nitrite would be needed to cause the desired effect, and less would have to be metabolised away later. Is there a proper study demonstrating how different doses of viagra change the effects of different doses of nitrite, from which quantitative conclusions could be drawn about how dangerous this is? If not, then this warning is itself an unsubstantiated urban myth, based upon anecdotal reports of people dying but without precise explanation of the circumstances. Sandpiper (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

maryland records

Could you post a link to the judiciary website?

71.158.157.173 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

sildenafil ref

I notice you replaced a newspaper article ref with a journal in the sildenafil article. As I don't have the journal in question, I wanted to ask you to confirm that it states what it is cited to support.

The ref supposedly states that use of sildenafdil has increased amongst healthy men because they believe falsely that it increases penis size, falsely that it increases erection hardness and falsely that it increases the quality of sexual experience (amongst other claims).

Does the ref really say this? As far as I am aware the reason people take viagra, that is, the reason anyone takes viagra, is because it increases erection hardness and this has been clinically and experientially proven time and time again. Are you saying, as the article currently says, that it does not, that this is a myth?

I am not aware that it permanently increases penis size, but obviously if it increases hardness of erection, which is an expansion process, then temporarily it does increase penis size. Does the ref say the reverse is true, or there is no such effect?

Thirdly, sexual experience is obviously a subjective issue. My guess is that a guy without an erection when wanted will subjectively have a worse sexual experience than one who takes his viagra and gets an erection. Does the ref say this is false?

Nowhere does the wiki article differentiate between the effects on young healthy men and upon older men with sexual dysfunction, but just talks generally. Does the ref you quote make this distinction and go into what the different efects are on the different groups? If so, then perhaps we should make the differentiation and explain the difference.

And finally what struck me first: that the article claims the reason healthy men (presumably including healthy 70 year olds?) take the drug is that they believe certain false claims about it. Does the ref state that these men use it recreationally because they believe myths about viagra, as distinct from because they believe accepted scientific facts about viagra?

While on the subject, how is recreational use defined? It seems to me the only way it is ever used is recreationally. Does the reference define what is meant by this term? Viagra is altogether a recreational drug, that is why people want it, including those getting by prescription from their doctor! Sandpiper (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not reply to your initial remarks as the tone was quite hostile and frankly inappropriate.

First, "recreational" means the drug was NOT prescribed to them and they obtained it through illegal channels.

Second, You also seemed to have missed one of the other references, the placebo control study by Mondaini et al. in 2003. This study makes things quite explicit: They gave some men real viagra, and some sugar pills, and told them all it was viagra. Do you understand why and what this research model is used for? It is to eliminate falsely reported benefits that are the result of anecdotal reports such as the ones you seemed to be pushing. In this study, there was NO difference between these groups in terms of hardness or size ("quality of erection"), ability to achieve erection, or subjective improvement of experience. That's right, men on sugar pills who did not have erectile dysfunction got erections all the time (like the report you mentioned) because they believed they were on viagra.

Frankly, you seemed to have been implying that you yourself used the drug illegally and therefore were somehow some kind of expert on the drug's pharmacology and effects. People like you are precisely the reason Mondaini did the study.Legitimus (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it seems to me most medical trials before new medicines are released are pretty inadequate. For example, antidepressants which when used widely on the population as a whole are discovered to increase the risk of suicide in certain groups. The trials are simply not big enough. In this case I am also pretty sure the study you reference was very small, and I doubt anyone has done a major long term trial on thousands of individuals to research the effectiveness for younger groups. Except, as I mentioned on the talk page, I specifically recall an original trial subject who was young being interviewed when the Viagra story first broke. He was a young trial subject who experienced the standard effects from viagra within the trial. They worked for him. This data must exist somewhere. Now, whether sex would be better for him or not having taken the drug I couldn't say, but it had the stated effects.

Being young before viagra was invented I can't say from my own experience what the effects might have been at that age. Being now middle aged and thus somewhere between the irrepressible youth and the medically impaired, I can assure you from my personal experiment that the drug has a noticeable effect on people in this category. I know others who have used it similarly (so its not just me.) A guy once told me he had an erection all night which he couldnt get rid of. Obviously, placebo. Like the guy who says he may be paranoid, but that does not mean they aren't out to get you, the existence of a placebo effect does not rule out the existence of a real one.

I also see no scientific reason why Viagra would not have a similar effect upon young people whose sexual function is impaired temporarily by alcohol, drugs, repeated sexual encounters or general wild partying. This seems to be the category which is likely to be interested in taking viagra, and which may genuinely benefit from doing so. Did the study you mention use people whose sexual function was thus impaired, or merely ordinary members of the public going about their ordinary sex lives? It is pretty much irrelevant unless it recruited people in the class who might be interested in using the drug for its noted medical effects in a recreational setting. Depending on the circumstances, having an essentially permanent erection may be an embarassment or an advantage to a guy, recreationally speaking. Obviously viagra would be used for this effect, say at a rave. Did the trials you mention cover this situation?

It is necessary to be rather precise over what exactly the trials you cite were measuring. Did they fit devices to constantly measure erection size and frequency, or rely upon reporting? Notoriously imprecise in any sexual study. Did they ask about frequency and extent of spontaneous erections, or simply of erections where their chosen healthy candidates would have expected to be able to have satisfactory erections anyway? How well did they consider they were able to differentiate small changes in their subjects sexual responses during the trial? (in other words, how accurately were thay able to measure erection response, with what stated error margins?)

I am curious whether you have any information of what proportion of viagra usage is via prescription from legitimate doctors and what proportion is what you describe as 'illegal'. This seems to be a very poor word to use in the context of a drug which, as I have said twice, is only ever used recreationally in any normally understandable meaning of that word. There is no real distinction as eg for morphine prescribed for pain control and morphine used by an addict to get high. The effect desired by the off-prescription user in this case is exactly the same as that wanted by the prescription users. i don't know what the generally accepted specific criteria are for diagnosing erectile dysfunction and prescribing viagra: where medically do they draw the line at prescribing or refusing?

So, yes, I do understand the purpose and detail of blind studies, but have any relevant ones been carried out? I note the anecdotal repot I mention above from someone is entirely consistent with the mondial study. reduced refactory time (to zero), and although I didnt mention it above, also reported effect on premature ejaculation, specifically inabilty to orgasm despite the erection. So arguably the reduced refractory time might not be a good indicator, because erection is not the only proocess which has to reset for the guy to be ready to go again and it becomes unclear what is being measured.

You do not address the main difficulty with the wiki article, which is that it starts out claiming things which are not true. It needs to be reworded. What is wrong with it is that it goes over the top in denying recreational uses of the drugs. Fine to say a couple just having sex normally are unlikely to see much difference, but the article claims under no circumstances is there any effect. If you think my tone aggressive, well that's because this matter seems to me to be a no-brainer. Have you checked your spam lately? Such a huge industry does not arise in providing a drug which is useless.Sandpiper (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You keep talking like I wrote whole article. I did not, I didn't even write the section on recreational usage, just altered it slightly. I don't pay the article much mind most of the time other than occasional peeks for vandalism. Really, my only point I was attempting to drive home was that if you are a person who is perfectly capable of achiveing an erection already, the drug isn't going to help the sexual experience. A young man without erectile dysfunction (including that which is brought about by taking other drugs) is not going to see much benefit to a drug other than reduction in refractory time. Note it says "limited, if any benefit" not "effect." Having a persistent erection all night long is not a benefit, it's priapism and rather painful (barring said individual being hopped up on something else). This isn't stuff you want to screw around with like it's some kind of toy. A few years ago we had a young man arrive in the ER with a priapism so bad they had to put him under and put shunts in his penis.Legitimus (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You inserted the ref which claims to substantiate the existing text. This means you are putting your reputation as a wiki editor behind the claim that the ref actually supports the text it is placed against. I appreciate that perhaps all you were trying to do was find a better ref than the one which was there already, but if the new ref is merely from a more respectable source but still does not address all the points, then all this amounts to is subtly misleading and corrupting wiki. Since it is not available online, it is also a worse ref in this respect, because we cannot easily look at it to see what it says. I have a bee in my bonnet about references, which is that frequently the problem with them is not that there aren't any, but that peple use them subtly wrongly and this can be very difficult to check. This is going to become a bigger and bigger problem. I have listed above in detail the claims from the first paragraph of the 'recreational use' section which this ref is supposed to substantiate. I listed them in detail to make the point that there are some very specific claims in this para which do not appear to be accurate and seem unlikely to be substantiated by the ref. By inserting the ref, you have claimed that they are.

The sentence you now draw my attention to claims that 'healthy men receive very little, if any, benefit from the drug'. I have tried to explain that Mondaini does not claim this because of the limitations of his study, at least so far as it is explained in the online abstract. Not having the new ref I can't say what it says, but I suspect it has the same problems and you have not addressed the specific points I already listed. I don't know if it goes into the differences between 'benefit' and 'effect', I don't know if it only concerns itself with 'healthy men'. If so, and by this if it means the same group as Mondaini used, then it isn't addressing the issue. I can't say, but I suspect that people who use viagra recreationally do not do so under ordinary circumstances of routine sex with their usual partner. (Though having said that, I recall someone being interviewed on TV recently who seemed to be a viagra addict and did exactly that) What is needed is a study of recreational users, not non-recreational users. People in the situations where recreational use would take place who are given the drug to try. If you want to find out whether MPs are more or less prone to fiddling their expenses than the ordinary population, it is no good doing a study based simply on a random sample of 100 members of the UK population. You need a random sample of 100 MPs. (to use a recent british analogy). In particular this relates to the articles claim that recreational users are basing their choice to use on false beliefs about the drugs effect in those specific circumstances. Has any evidence been introduced to say under what circumstances recreational use normally occurs?

I have no idea what the ref really says because I don't have a copy. Thus I asked you, who presumably does, whether it supports the specific claims made by the article. Sandpiper (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

" This isn't stuff you want to screw around with like it's some kind of toy". Careful what you write. Surely this stuff is normally used to 'screw around with' and most definitely used as a sex toy. This seems to be its entire purpose, the reason doctors prescribe it, the basis of its manufacturers advertising campaign and the reason for its huge success. Your comment illustrates the need for precision when composing text. Sandpiper (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done talking to you. You clearly are not interested in what I have to say, and only want to undermine the material because you want to justify your own substance abuse to yourself and possibly others. You called the contraindication of sildenafil and nitrites an urban legend for crying out loud despite that it's in every pharmaceutical textbook and drug reference. When someone with a rational argument and preferable some kind of actual medical training challenges this material on grounds other than excessive skepticism, then I will try to reach a consensus. If you want a referral from me in the US to a substance abuse program, I can do that. Otherwise leave me and the article alone.Legitimus (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, i take it then that as you have not answered my initial question at all in this exchange, nor provided any information about the ref you inserted, that it does not support the statements attributed to it. You seem to have implied this by some of your comments where you disclaimed responsibility for the exact wording. I shall therefore edit the article appropriately when I get time. Wiki editors have a responsibility to check the accuracy of text they are defending. You did not see the point of the priapic example. If viagra has no effect on healthy males over and above their normal response except a placebo one, how on earth does it cause priapism needing surgical intervention? Your own example denies the statements in the article text. Sandpiper (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha

Funny stuff man, clozapine does sound like the answer to his problems... Hey, if you don't mind though what do you think about demons and witchcraft? You see I am doing a study on it and I just need some input.ThroughTheDarkness (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, see your page.Legitimus (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I appreciate it —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThroughTheDarkness (talk • contribs) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

egosyntonic

Interesting term... [2]. Your comment is unsigned though, in case you want to add your sig. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

fan of Drew?

So are you a big fan of Drew/Adam, or coming into it from the medical angle only? tedder (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Molestation Recidivism Statistics

This is concerning the deletion of the recidivism section of the Child Sexual Abuse article, in which you deleted, that read: “A study done in California in 1965 found a 18.2% recidivism rate for heterosexual pedophiles as opposed to a 34.5% recidivism rate for homosexual pedophiles after 5 years.”

Within the edit summary you stated "4 decades old and information is misleading. Actual recidivism is not known with any certainty" I'd like to address that argument.

When you site the age of the study as a problem I assume you are implying that my logic contains time period fallacy, thus making the information misleading. However the problem with that is that for a study to be misapplied to a latter date in time there would have to be some difference in relevant areas of the subjects that changes over the time periods. I see no reason why someone sexually attracted to children would experience a different level of temptation between 1965 and 2009. If you do please feel free to explain.

Your opinion on the information being misleading is flawed in that I make no intent to lead anyone to a particular conclusion by presenting the information of a study. I made no conclusions in that section that recidivism is known with any certainty. If you are curious as to why I would feel it warranted inclusion to the article it is so that it can aid individuals reading the article in drawing their conclusion on the risk of child molester recidivism. However after rereading the section I do see how you could have come to the conclusion that I was stating the percentage of child molesters that recidivate when I stated that they “found a … rate.” I only intended that to mean for the pedophiles of their study and apologize for not being more clear. Thus propose to modify the statement to “A study done in California in 1965 found a 18.2% recidivism rate for the heterosexual pedophiles of their study as opposed to a 34.5% recidivism rate for homosexual pedophiles of their study after 5 years.”

As far as your opinion “that that recidivism is not known with any certainty,” you are absolutely right. Child Molestation would fall under the realm of Social Science. Nothing in science is known with any certainty. No inductive reasoning is. As solid as Newtonian Physics seemed, Einstein still found it was flawed. Social Science in particular is plagued with the flaw of being without certainty. To state that is however a good point. Another added statement to the recidivism section could then have read: “Individuals have questioned the validity and accuracy of recidivism studies to the real percentage of offenders that recidivate.” (Followed by another citation for source 16 of course)

Opinions? Joshua Phillips (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I note the ref you seem to be talking about is titled 'Treated sex offenders who reverted to sexually deviant behavior.' Given this was 1965, what exactly is meant by 'treated', would it mean the same thing for homosexual and heterosexual offenders, and would it not be rather different now either way so that the circumstances from which the statistics were derived no longer apply, and may never have applied anywhere other than America, or evn just some states? Sandpiper (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply from joshua

Personally in my opinion the likely difference between the recidivism rates of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles comes from Pedophiles who lack gender preference. Most child molesters are male and a child molester who lacks a gender preference would have a much greater chance of gaining access to children of their own gender. Thus it might appear that they desire only boys when in fact that is merely what they had access to. For instance look at the Pedophiles caught in the Catholic church. I'm no catholic but I've never heard of an altar girl. If after a stirring sermon on god and morality the pedophile preist found himself wanting to "get some" he would only access to his alter boys. Sadly I don't know any writers who have displayed this opinion even though it seemed logicial to me. Joshua Phillips (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange talk posts in Pedophilia

I've noticed you've made several postings to the talk page for pedophilia, yet never responded to any of them. I dare say most of them seem off-topic or provocative, and seem to lack a clear idea of the subject matter. Please stop leaving these posts, especially if you never intend to reply to them.Legitimus (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I do intend to reply to them, at least most of them. Pedophilia in general is a controversial topic, so it is difficult to sub-divide anything that would be especially controversial and anything that would not be. ADM (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well let me address your most recent here, for this reason: It's in the wrong article. Technically the subject matter relates to child sexual abuse, so you probably should move it.

Some background on this and problems noted in the other posts: Pedophilia and child sexual abuse (CSA) are separate subjects that are often confused with one another. CSA is the actual abusing of a child; pedophilia refers to a person's mental sexual attraction to children (specifically, children who have not reached puberty), not the act of abuse itself. Many of the previous posts seem to have the mistaken assumption that pedophilia is the act of abusing a child.

Another matter is the somewhat inflammatory nature of two post, about the Talmud and LGBT adoption. Both of these subjects are frequently issues brought up by bigots to use in propaganda, so naturally are bound to rile many people.Legitimus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Most people in the general public tend to assume that an attraction to children, especially a same-sex attraction to children, is highly conductive to child sexual abuse. As I said above, it is only a formal convention to assume that the two are separate. Also, what I am interested in here is public perception of social phenomenons, and not necesarily the medical distinctions that specialists like to make. If something is deemed to be sociologically controversial, and it is proven by the public to be so, then it certainly deserves to be mentioned somewhere in our entries. Furthermore, I had been reading about the social legitimization of these things. If it appears that the Talmud allows LGBT adoption in certain circumstances, and it happens that this is relevant, then it should be cited with appropriate sources. That is all. ADM (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Leadership Council

I've re-removed the leadership council external link and posted a rationale here. I was removing all the leadership council convenience links I could find and this one also turned up - I have no problem with the criticisms of the study being included if they can be found in peer-reviewed publications, but including non-notable advocacy websites just seems like lowering the reliability bar for no good reason. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Drew Pinsky

Hi. Please do not use inappropriate edit summaries, as you did with this edit to Drew Pinsky. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be good. Snarky perhaps; I got carried away a bit. Just felt it was warranted in light of an edit that was so defamatory it could result in legal action against the user or Wikipedia.Legitimus (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Catherwood

The article Michael Catherwood has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Rettetast (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sex offenders and murderers

Why is it that sex offenders receive a load of restrictions (such as they have to stay away from schools and at least 30 feet away from kids) but murderers don't? Offeryears101 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Makhila

Hello and thank you for using my picture on your article, it’s very flattering. In answer to your question, the makhila that it depicts is about 1,05 metre, but each and every stick is unique, and made according to the size and weight of it’s future owner. I actually ordered this one from the Ainciart-Bergara workshop in Larressore (considered as the trademark makhila maker) for my dad’s 60th birthday. The delay was about 6 months, but it can be up to more than a year, with clients from all over the world (which seems surprising for such a small family business). If you have an opportunity to visit them one day, you’ll probably be surprised to see a wall covered with pictures of celebrities receiving a Makhila from their workshop (such as Ronald Reagan or John Paul IInd). It was funny how I had to « make my proofs » as a client to obtain their agreement to have a Makhila made from them, and as I conceived it (specific decorations, personal motto translated in Basque) : the manager asked me a series of questions to know who I was, what I wanted a makhila for, how I came to know them, what it meant for me etc. But it was worth it. On the D-day, I took my dad to the workshop pretending a simple visit, and he received his present from them. Such a great time. Cheers. --Jibi44 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I unfortunately have no idea how height and weight is used to determine the length and diameter, I suppose that it is part of the well-kept business secret (copies & fakes do great harm to luxuary business in France). All I can say is that my dad is 1,83 m. I can remember that the manager said that most of their overseas clients are from the US (meaning that someone must be able to understand written English), but they do not accept all orders (nasty Basque character ;-). If you still wish to order, the best way is to write a letter letting them know you height, weight (using the metric system), motto, motivations for buying & specific decoration + the different materials that you wish. --Jibi44 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job!

On the typologies section at CSA. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

CSA page

HI Legitimus

Thanks for starting the new section, a welcome improvement to the page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a bit crude, but it's a start.Legitimus (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello - in cleaning up from the recent disruption, I reviewed your edit but was not able to figure out what had changed, so it ended up being lost. If it's something you feel is important, please adjust the current version to include your changes. Sorry about that... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

on pedophilia treatment

Don't be surprised if you don't get any answers to your question regarding treatment for non-offending pedophiles. People don't like to admit they exist. They find it hard to demonize someone suffering from a such a condition but they don't want to help, they just wait with bated breath for the poor sod to self-destruct so they can pull out the torches and pitchforks.

I've looked a long time for treatment, I haven't found any. You heard of any, doc? Finite (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Where might one go to for said treatment? Finite (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. Finite (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Comment

HI Legitimus: Thanks for your input on my suggestion to add an external link on child sexual abuse. I will wait a few more days and if no negative responses will add link.

Thanks again Ginerbread (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

hey on the Brown topic

yeah man i see what your saying about the "active campaign against satanists but really a deliverence ministry is frontline direct spiritual warfare with satan. What happens is they basically cast the demons that oppress you away but... I really believe it doesn't do too much because what is really happening is that the "shall we say" delivence'ee gets the demons cast out but unfortunately if they do not change their lifestyle they will have the demons return sevenfold (i would tell you where this is from but i am not a bible scholar yet haha) so yeah im not sure if that helped at all or opened you eyes and also what Elaine states in her book i have seen to some extent (except for the human sacrifices and Satan in physical manifistation) but other than that i have seen it. i was once heavily involved in the occult (you see i was bathed in blood and dedicated to satan as a child and i saw demons and talked to them for as long as i can remember and yeah first hand experiences it exists it really does but the whole regional bride of statan i have never really heard of. so yeah there you go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.189.182 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Would you please remember to take your clozapine? It really does work but you need to take it on time and consistently. 150mg in the morning and the evening. Stick with it, and you'll be using capitalization and spell-check in no time at all. Legitimus (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ephebophilia#Editor placing neutral point of view tag on article

Your comments on this matter would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox added in Captain Alatriste

This is a stock message to a number of people who have contributed to the article on the ‘’book’’ series of Captain Alatriste as an FYI. I have added a character infobox to the article. If you have time, enter the edit function in article and fill in appropriate information after the = sign. Fill in only what you think applies, but please leave all fields there. If nothing comes after the = sign, then it won’t appear in the article. On the other hand, if someone DOES think the field applies, they can add pertinent info. I do understand that this is technically a series article and not a character article. I’ve added the info box because 1) the series does revolve around Alatriste in large part and 2) the box really does improve what little is on the article right now. If a character article is created, we can copy and paste over. IMHO (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ephebophilia

Sometimes diagnosed as a disorder

Hey, Legitimus, does the second reference you provided for that new addition state ages? I'm having a difficult time believing that experts would consider a sexual preference for late teenagers, such as 17, 18, and 19-year-olds a disorder. People are confused enough on this subject. Hebephilia should be stated as sometimes being diagnosed as a disorder before ephebophilia is. We do not state Transsexualism as a disorder in the lead (it mentions diagnosis but not disorder), even though transsexualism is listed as a disorder. Well, as we know, ephebophilia is not truly listed as a disorder. I do not see what good can come out of stating that "ephebophilia can sometimes be diagnosed as a disorder"... I mean, forgive my being passionate about this, but I have dealt with enough misinformed people (not you, of course) on the subject of what pedophilia is and ephebophilia is, such as parents actually having the nerve to call a 20-year-old a pedophile just because that 20-year-old was dating their 17-year-old daughter. Or people feeling that a 30-something year old man is pedophi-lish or "sick in the head" for dating a 19-year-old. I mean, tell that to Hugh Hefner.

I feel that the lead needs to be worded in a way that it does not leave people with the sense that ephebophilia is truly a disorder. Right now, I am going to tweak the lead away from stating the specific ages (15-19) and rather to simply state mid to late adolescents solely; it leaves people with more freedom to determine what they consider late adolescents without saying, "Hey, a sexual preference for 19-year-olds could be considered a disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:James Cantor#Original research in Ephebophilia article?. You might want to weigh in on this, since it is about the paragraph you mostly constructed in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adolescent age

A certain IP/editor keeps changing the age range in the Ephebophilia article, insisting on my talk page that adolescence generally ends at age 14. I am not sure where he got his information, but he cannot keeping changing the definition simply because he disagrees with it. I explained at User talk:Flyer22#Adolescent age, but this may not be the end of it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Damnatio memoriae

Hi Legitimus - I saw your comment about damnatio memoriae on another talk page, so I looked up the topic. It has an interesting history. Sort of like the Wikipedia version at WP:SHUN. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know about WP:SHUN. I'll remember that.Legitimus (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

fyi...

Hi Legitimus, you may be interested in viewing this at ANI: [3]. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Please take a look at this page history. On that topic, since it's so specialized, some sources that might not be reliable on a more general topic may be OK within that local context. But the problematic self-published source that has has been previously removed from several other articles remains unreliable on any page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Another couple topics, another agenda-IP: Would you please take a look at these contribs? The IP is probably dynamic or a Tor/Proxy, so some contribs might not show up in that list. It would probably be a good idea to also keep an eye on all related articles. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fringe/undue...

Hi - your input is welcome here... Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the new info and sources, that part of the topic has much better context now. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We know who it is...

...so should we report him? Or not unless he continues to do this? Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, the troll very recently decided to send me and some others a "friendly message" on my talk page. I'm going to report this to the administrator who was involved in that discussion, and see what he does. I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Adolescence#Image debate: Image:A boy in the mirror.jpg vs. Image:Adolescentboy.jpg.

Hey, Legitimus. I am not expecting you to agree with me simply because we sometimes work together, but I need your help on this matter. Will you respond on it? I need a sufficient number of opinions about this; I am the main person editing this article, as well as the main person keeping it free of vandalism. The talk page is not active. I have asked some other editors to respond on this matter as well, but I am not sure how many of them will show up to do so. Any assistance you can provide on this would be much appreciated by me. Flyer22 (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

I wish you the best, Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Revictimization and Rationalization

Thanks very much for your text on revictimization. It seems to tie in quite well with "Self-image of victimisation" and "Self-victimisation". If I could find a decent source I would add text on the revictimization of bully victims as well.

If you can spare the time, please can you have a look at the dispute here: Talk:Rationalization (fallacy) --Penbat (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources I added has some material on bullying. I'll read it in more detail. For "self-victimization" I recommend working in matters related to malingering and factitious disorder (known popularly as "Münchausen syndrome"). Self-harm may warrant a look, though I'm not sure it fits with the model of the article.Legitimus (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-victimisation redirects to Victim playing which mentions "Münchausen syndrome" which is a type of attention seeking. Self-harm is not necessarily attention seeking but probably ought to be mentioned in victim playing. Victim playing currently has more emphasis on victim playing as a ploy used by abusers and manipulators.--Penbat (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

exaggeration

Thanks for looking at this. Bizarre that "exaggeration" had not been done before. I have changed it from "exaggeration (psychology)" to just "exaggeration". The current redirect from exaggeration to "hyperbole" was inadequate. It is a very interesting subject. I want to tighten it up in the sandbox for the whole of March before unleashing it. Feel free to contribute as you wish. --Penbat (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll be adding stuff as I find it.Legitimus (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just put it in mainspace as exaggeration as I think it had matured sufficiently. Please "watch" it and feel free to improve it.--Penbat (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Victims who become abusers

Another very important topic that needs covering (maybe in a Victim article and the abuse article) is the phenomina of victims turning abuser. I think this is covered in individual abuse articles but should be pulled together in 1 place. One obvious suggested mechanism for this is that for some victims the abuse may seem like normalised behaviour to them. Do you know any relevant academic terminology for "Victims who become abusers" so i can do some google searching on this? Related to this in some way is the mess here: Malignant_narcissism#Victimology. Personality disorders are obviously not contagious like an infection but in some cases, presumably through normalisation, PD traits get passed onto others.--Penbat (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting topic. While I don't know of an agreed upon catch all for this, "abused becomes the abuser" is a good string. Also "intergenerational transmission of violence/abuse" is good, as well as "cycle of violence/abuse."Legitimus (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It does tie into Cycle of abuse but Cycle of abuse is another weak area of Wikipedia that needs sorting out as well. I have started a sandbox on this User:Penbat/intergenerational_transmission_of_abuse. No rush but pleaae add any relevant info you come across.--Penbat (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work.

I very much liked your improved summary of Krafft-Ebing in pedophilia.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot coming from you. I don't consider myself a great "primary writer" so there are no doubt some proofreading and corrections that may be needed.Legitimus (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DSM issues

Hi. :) If you and your copy of DSM are available at some point, SandyGeorgia has requested a review of Tic disorder at the CP listing. I hate to keep an article in limbo if there's no issues at all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance, especially with those articles in which no problem existed. Shame to blank them for no reason. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sibling abuse

Hi Legitimus

What do you think of this article -- Sibling abuse ? To me it seems like the statistics may be incorrect or incorrectly interpreted, and it's almost all from one source that's not so strong. I wonder if there is enough there for a full article, or if it might be better handled with a merge to Child-on-child sexual abuse. Whether it's merged or not, over time it would be good if we can improve the factual info and the sources. No hurry, just thought you might want to check it out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

minimisation (psychology) and exaggeration dispute.

If you can spare the time please can you comment on the dispute at Talk:Minimisation_(psychology) "Edits by User:Jojalozzo here and in exaggeration" section

thx --Penbat (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hebephilia#Karen Franklin

Up for weighing in on the above linked topic? Flyer22 (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit reviewing tool

Hi Legitimus

I hope you don't mind, I added your name to this list:

User talk:Risker#Editors who should have Autoreviewer/Edit reviewer activated ASAP

It looks like your reviewer status was activated today.

(User rights log); 16:44 . . Amalthea (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Legitimus from (none) to Reviewers (trusted user)

The trial of the reviewing feature is just getting started. It might not apply to articles you're working on, but in case something comes up you'll have the needed tool.

More info here: Wikipedia:Reviewing

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

intergenerational transmission of abuse

I intend spending the next couple of weeks developing this in my sandbox before unleashing as an article: User:Penbat/intergenerational transmission of abuse

Feel free to add any useful constructive material.--Penbat (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this. I havent made as much progress as yet as i would have liked on User:Penbat/intergenerational transmission of abuse partly because i have got sidetracked doing some other articles in my sandboxes (see User:Penbat). I do want to push forwards on User:Penbat/intergenerational transmission of abuse but am also spending time on other fascinating articles. One very interesting topic i stumbled upon is User:Penbat/social undermining. Other things i am looking at at present include: User:Penbat/professional abuse and User:Penbat/Setting up to fail.--Penbat (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanksJacobisq (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again re email-still lots of neat tricks to learn!Jacobisq (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

intergenerational transmission of abuse v cycle of abuse

"intergenerational transmission of abuse" seems to overlap with cycle of abuse but cycle of abuse strangely currently just covers what Lenore Walker means by cycle of abuse which is cycles between individual instances of abuse which seems quite meaningless to me. Also we have cycle of violence which actually has quite a lot more google hits than cycle of abuse. Is "intergenerational transmission of abuse" the same as cycle of abuse in which case would one article cover both ?--Penbat (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The term cycle of abuse as used in that article is popular in the US with lay-person domestic violence education. One flaw to that article I might add is that there are a lot of derivatives that do not necessarily originate from Walker. Rather the general concept is just that abusers often hit someone, then apologize and try to make up for it, only to lose control again at a later time in a cyclical fashion. A undeniably observed pattern, but as noted not all abusive relationships function in this pattern.

I feel "cycle of abuse" (or at least the meaning used by Walker and others) should remain distinct since it is a separate concept, referring to a pattern rather than transmission. "Cycle of violence" may be worthy of development and interconnection, though is a very broad term referring to many different things, and can include things as large as warfare. "Intergenerational" is fine but does imply a a child victim who grows up to adulthood before becoming an abuser. So cycle of violence may be a better place to start if you wanted cover transmitting abusive behavior as a whole concept, inclusive of intergenerational.Legitimus (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Legitimus's Day!

User:Legitimus has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Legitimus's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Legitimus! Peace, Rlevse 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

You certainly have patience to go with your erudition to put up with That Dreadful Woman. I just don't have the patience for these people anymore, but I'm sure glad that someone does. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki barnstar, awarded to Legitimus for tireless application of erudite scholarship and cold logic in difficult and fraught subject areas to defend the Wikipedia from being hustled down dark paths of danger and error. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Previous rewrite of Etymology and history

Hey, Legitimus. Do you have access to the stuff we had about Krafft-Ebing in the Etymology and history section before your rewrite? I believe that section would benefit from some of that being added back. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean the sources? I didn't remove any during that rewrite as far as I know. In fact, there really only is one source, Psychopathia Sexualis. And it's public domain due to being over a century old.

By the way, I took Pedophilia off my watchlist temporarily for a breather.Legitimus (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You said "re-write based on source material"...which led me to believe some of the stuff you removed isn't in Psychopathia Sexualis. I've never read that whole thing. Are you saying quotes such as "The sexual interest is toward prepubescent youths only. This interest does not extend to the first signs of pubic hair." is in Psychopathia Sexualis? I simply cannot remember if it specifies that much.

As for taking a breather, I understand. I don't even look at my watchlist anymore, haven't for quite some time. But, at the moment, it is only one editor constantly posting talk page stuff we generally disagree with. We've been through worse, LOL. As long as you don't abandon the article completely, I'm fine with your breather. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That quote you just used as an example is not in Psychopathia Sexualis, at least not in the translations I have read (the original is in Latin and German). Frankly I have no idea where some of the sentences that were there before my rewrite came from, which is why I removed them.

Btw, have you considered linking you account to an e-mail? Some conversations are best not left out in public and permanently recorded.Legitimus (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; that's probably why I don't remember reading them.

My account is already linked to my email. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack missing in action

Any idea where Jack is? I have never missed him so much, LOL. I would try to contact him through email, but, even as an experienced Wikipedia editor, I have no idea how to. I already looked at WP:Emailing users and do not see the option they mentioned...on any user page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus, have you gotten my emails? I'd like to talk with you about a few things. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I only got the one copied message, but nothing else.Legitimus (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. I only sent you two (maybe three) emails anyway. Another editor cited some kind of problem sending me a message -- BigString.com not recognizing me or something like that. I'll try and figure out what's wrong. Just be on the lookout for any emails from me; hopefully, all will make it to you. I had just figured you were more of a "read and typically remain silent unless an emergency" kind of guy, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Postpartum psychosis

I noticed that this article was "radically overhauled" by a contributor who seems to have cut and pasted two other substantial articles on the same subject. Would you be able to check his contributions for copyvio? Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Certainly but could you be more specific? I don't see to many major changes for a while on this article.Legitimus (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"parental abuse by children" and "Body language cues of psychopath targets".

Hi i am steadily working through my To do list on User:Penbat. 2 very interesting subjects i need info on is:

• "parental abuse by children" ref Growing levels of concern from parents and carers experiencing aggression from their children WHEN FAMILY LIFE HURTS: Family experience of aggression in children - Parentline plus 31 October 2010 - also childhood aggression is not very good on Wikpedia.
• Towards the end of the video "I Psychopath" available on youtube, there is an interview with psychologist Angela Book who has researched the quote from Ted Bundy that he can tell that somebody has been previously abused and would make a good target by the way they tilt their head. Book set up an experiment of film clips each showing a different person walking but with 1 person who had suffered child abuse. Book noted that that 1 person tended to walk with an unconventional gait such as arms out of synch with legs. Book asked psychopaths and non-psychopaths to try to guess the person walking who had been abused and the psychopaths got a significantly higher success rate than non-psychopaths. It looks like psychopaths are often sensitive to body language cues to select victims. I think this ties in with revictimisation.

Can you find me any useful material on these ?--Penbat (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The latter is very interesting! I will see what I can do for both.Legitimus (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are Angela Book's papers. I'm working on obtaining the full copy.

• Book, A.S., Quinsey, V.L., & Langford, D. (2007). Psychopathy and the perception of affect and vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(4), 531-544.

  Wheeler, S., Book, A.S., & Costello, K. (2009). Psychopathic traits and perceptions of victim vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 635-648.

Thx. The Angela Book interview can be seen about a minute into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhpXdpgHcMM&NR=1 Im not sure precisely what Bundy's throwaway line is - I cant hear it properly. I think something can be added to psychopathy and victimisation articles about this.--Penbat (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also see How a psychopath spots a victim (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the delay, I have been pretty busy lately. I finally got a full copy of Book's 2009 study which seems to be the most relevant and the latest in this area of research. An excellent read. Nothing new of note though that you did not mention above, except maybe that Book notes some limitations to her study.

Regarding children victimizing parents, I did find these articles [4][5]. I also found a lot of research was pretty old, from "back in the day" when it was acceptable to beat the tar out of kids because they were "wayward" and "attacked" the parent first. There is a perverse irony in this antiquated stance when compared this modern article [6] that indicates child violence towards the parent is brought about by the parent's violence towards the child in the first place.Legitimus (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sycophancy

Thanks for your previous help. I am working my way through my "to do list" in an inconsistent manner. I will get back to the previous things you helped me with at some point.

Anyway, one thing that needs doing is a brief write up on the psychology and sociology of sycophancy. I have only found one decent sounding academic source "Clark LP A Psychological Study of Sycophancy. Psychoanalytic Review 21:15-39 (1934)". If you have access to this source or know of anything else relevant, can you write a few sentences in Sycophancy#Psychology and sociology of sycophancy ? Thanks. Incidentally there is a book called "Silbermann, Alphons & Lob, Ladislaus, Grovelling and Other Vices: The Sociology of Sycophancy (2000)" but it is unrelated garbage.--Penbat (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Adult grooming

There is no doubt that adult grooming is a valid concept. The basic psychology is the same as child grooming, just the contexts differ. Anyway, I have no refs in adult grooming. Do you know of any suitable refs I could use ? --Penbat (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Legitimus. You have new messages at Talk:Pedophilia.
Message added 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Angel of Mercy (criminology)#Article title altered from "serial killer" to "criminology"

Hey, Legitimus. Good to see you again. Moments ago, I just noticed your change of this title, and came to ask you to help me understand your reason for the title change. Flyer22 (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Map-Ages of consent in North America

Hi. I see you've added the new map from User:Magnoliasouth. It's very good, but it has a little problem: the age of consent is 13 in the Mexican states of Yucatán and Zacatecas, see here-Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Local_laws. So the map should be modified there - these 2 states should be colored with that blue shade and the legend of the map should be modified, currently it says "13 (none at present)" so the "none at present" should be deleted. Maybe you could do this? I'm not very sure how to do it myself. Thanks.123username (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Laws regarding rape article

Legitimus, would you mind taking a look at this article and letting me know what you think of it? I feel that the lead has become problematic, as addressed in the Talk:Laws regarding rape#The lead is still problematic section (and the discussions above that). The lead doesn't even define rape right off the bat (which isn't that difficult to define, in my opinion, since a simple "sex or sexual activity without consent" will suffice), and goes into all these legal aspects that would better fit in the body of the article; for example, the lead is too long, per WP:LEAD.

I feel that it needs the eyes of other editors, besides mine and the editor whose edits for the lead I object to. I told him I would back off the lead for now, but that doesn't mean I won't ask for others' opinions on it. I've already taken the matter to some of the main associated WikiProjects, but they didn't care much to respond (at least in regards to this article; defining rape in the Rape article got decent attention, but, then again, that was mainly due to a large discussion about merging Rape and Sexual assault). WikiProjects in general haven't been much help these days anyway. Thank you for considering this, as I know you will, even if you decide to pass on weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pack of pedophiles

I notice that accounts and users claiming to be pedophiles are now pretty common at YouTube. For example 4boysonic and his 100 friends. Does this mean the disease is becoming more accepted by people and that now kids are much more at risk when they surf internet unsupervised? Rapidspacezzz (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We know you because you are a contributor to the pages about pedophilia and are an expert on the psychology side of that. I asked the question above because there were people on a forum who were wondering if Wikipedia is as evil as those NAMBLA or Boychat sites, since there was little regulation on pro-pedophile content. It appears that YouTube now surpasses Wikipedia by over 9000 miles as a booth for pro-pedophile propaganda, as evidenced by the presence of those channels which are still live today (despite people reporting them to YouTube staff). Pointeager111 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see; you're with them. That cool. Well, all I can tell you is here on Wikipedia I and several other non-admin users have been "fighting the good fight" for a few years now, and it seems ok now for the past year or so, far as I can tell. There's been relatively little interference from such people here and all the ones I know about have been banned by administrators or members the Arbitration Committee. You get the odd blowhard on a talk page here and there, but they don't fool anyone with their rhetoric and get crushed pretty easily. I suspect that the higher-ups like Jimbo were upset at some bad press WP was getting, and decided to put a policy in place behind the scenes. Wikipedia isn't a chat or social site, but rather the danger here is factual articles being altered in some a manner as to suit certain social agenda.

Sites that hold ideals of freedom of speech and absence of censorship like YouTube are noble, but also carry risks as you can see. I'm not a big YouTube user so I can't say if the site is just too big to manage for things like the users you mentioned, or if the policy of the site just has too many holes.Legitimus (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual predator#The most ridiculous thing is.../women not sexual predators

I'm not sure what to make of this editor's opinion. And it's most definitely an opinion. Anyway, just figured I'll alert you to it...as you may have something beneficial to say on the matter. Plus, though the article is locked, you may be interested in looking after it/later expanding it Flyer22 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Hebephilia#"Boys begin puberty generally at ages 12-13"

Perhaps you can help me understand the conflicting age ranges? I'm so confused about it right now, it's not even funny, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Serial killer#Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers

I know that I've been bugging you lately, but that's because you are a good editor, I trust you, and you have resources that I don't. Maybe you have access to some of the books I mention in the section above about serial killers?

I am starting to worry about the examples of "serial killing" being added to the Serial killer article, seeing as not all individuals who have killed more than two or three people can be accurately termed "serial killers" -- at least not by the usual definition. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Child pornography article

You still watching this article? Someone has placed a neutrality tag on it, per this discussion: Talk:Child pornography#Pornography = abuse??. I'll alert Herostratus of it as well, preferably through email (seeing as some antagonists hang out at his talk page). Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did not have it in my list. Thanks for alerting me.Legitimus (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Any opinions on the recent comments about it? You okay with this edit? Flyer22 (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ewawer#Pedophilia, sexual orientation and sexual preference

Just alerting you of this discussion, in case you have anything to add and before it hits the Pedophilia talk page (if it does). Flyer22 (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The age of consent edit warring

I don't know what to do about RJR3333 and all his edits regarding age of consent-related articles. They are erratic, sloppy, careless and generally unsourced. And Malke 2010 certainly isn't making it any easier. Perhaps you wouldn't mind weighing in at Talk:Chris Hansen#"Age of consent.", where Malke is claiming that age of consent doesn't exist in the United States and is essentially a misleading term? Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you watch the Ages of consent in North America article or occasionally do. And I have to say...this edit by RJR3333 was reckless -- removing a sourced History section discussing the history of a term simply because he doesn't like it or because his edits were removed from it -- and I told him as much on his talk page. This editor needs some serious tutoring on the ways of Wikipedia. But until he gets that and gets better, if he does at all, his edits will need to be watched. I'm going to make sure to keep an eye on these articles when I can...and on RJR3333's editing. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Suicide by cop

Sorry to disagree, but examples in fiction for many things are also "too numerous and often not properly defined or portrayed." In Falling Down, however, a suicide by cop is clearly portrayed. 201.36.232.9 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm

I haven't been watching the Rind article very closely because.... well, because I don't want to. But regarding User:Radvo, I noticed this link on his userpage: Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic. The site doesn't load, but here's a page about MHAMic (it's a wiki and so not reliable but is still a a starting point) which then mentions something called "B4U-ACT", which has a website here, and here's a news story about that.

Hmm, this does not look like it will probably end well. That is almost certainly not an acceptable link for a userpage, but I haven't removed it or asked the user to remove it because I think that other events may supercede that. But since you said you were kicking it upstairs, just making you aware of that link on the userpage (which I suppose you're already aware of). Good luck and let me know if there's anything I can do. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Legitimus: Here is a starting point for the Heather Ulrich et al. article you seek. Maybe you will find this link useful until the time you get your hard copy of the same. Ulrich is an important article because it very much softens the bite of the criticisms about Rind's methodology and use of statistics, (that are overplayed IMHO in the Wikipedia article.) Replication in this case was not easy because she was unable to make contact with Dr. Rind et al.; but her work was certainly confirmation of the statistics. [Heather Ulrich's Replication of 1998 Rind meta-analysis] Radvo (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but is that posted there with permission from the author? It does not seem to be, and that makes that site in violation of copyright. I'd rather get a legally obtained (and guaranteed unaltered) copy.Legitimus (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Invite

I invite you to comment here Pass a Method talk 11:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment?

Could you have a look at this section and provide an opinion? It's a sufficiently complex issue I'd like some input from other experienced editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good lord. There's so much to slog through and it's never even in chronological order. Could you be more specific to the paragraph in question?Legitimus (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my very, very bad. I meant this section! Very sorry. Basically I just want some input on whether it's a good idea to shorten, by a considerable margin, the criticisms made by Dallam. Essentially most, if not all, of the methodological criticisms made are baseless (so says Rind) so I see little point in including the back-and-forth. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at the above. I'm not sure what can be done about COI as it is Wikipedia's Achilles heel, but I have been wondering about the source of the enthusiasm at that article, and your question had entered my mind. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

board certified

Heh, nice little callout.

I wasn't sure, I asked my medstudent wife to verify that board certified != medical degree. I also stumbled across this list recently. Ouch. tedder (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah cool. My little bro is a resident though I have not asked him yet. This might start a little side project on media personalities with the title "Dr." and what their actual creds are.Legitimus (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My sister, User:Flyer22

Thank you for supporting my sister. But I should have known that any support my sister gets would be countered by her enemies slinging mud at her.[7]

She has spoken highly of you, and I sincerely thank you for being such a great co-worker to her. 210.51.43.82 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I really hope she is alright. She contacted me right before privately. I know about Kim too, as I was part of that discussion. No friend to me either.Legitimus (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for cleaning up the plot synopsis for Fifty Shades of Grey! It looks great!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Defensive Gun Use Incidents

Thanks for your comment on the talk page of the new article. I agree there are definite issues with that source and its characterization of incidents, but I think it could still be a starting point for investigation into additional incidents.

In other news, the article has been nominated for deletion, and I thought you may want to comment. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents Gaijin42 (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dexter Holland

I wrote such a long edit summary and completely forgot to thank you for finding a source. Belated thanks. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Child protection#Sex Offenders

A discussion you may be interested in. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Female serial killers section of the Serial killer article

Hey, Legitimus. I know that you and Doc9871 probably feel that I have this under control, but any input that you think will be helpful would be greatly appreciated by me in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Second request

This is my second request for you to address the matter in my email. Jokestress (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never received an e-mail from you. And if it contained some kind of threat or vitriol, I don't care to see it anyway. Regardless, I have nothing further to say and will be staying away from that page entirely, and instead occupy myself elsewhere.Legitimus (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia, taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hey, Legitimus. I'm alerting you to this. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Hebephilia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantor and "defensible biases"

I think, from the opposite side, you've probably hit upon the same thing I have, although this isn't a comment that I think fit on the ArbCom page and more of a general musing. I do fear that, given Cantor's work is peer reviewed, that people would give his theories and ideas a lot more leeway. This is rather dangerous, I think, because of the psychological establishment's history with general sexual and gender identity disorders (which repeats itself with the controversial appointment of two of Cantor's colleagues to the DSM-5's working force on paraphilias). I do think Cantor's work in some areas does need an eye kept on it, given his documented support for a fringe typology of transgender people that is more regressive than Harry Benjamin's fifty-year-old typology, let alone current WPATH typology. As I said on AN/I a couple of days ago, I think Cantor's walking a fine line between expert editor and COI pusher, and he knows exactly how to keep on the "expert" side of the line. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. I acknowledge he isn't perfect, and this whole incident has made me a bit more wary of his work. The transgender material is an area I know very little about all around on either side, so perhaps that does color my perceptions a bit. At the very least, I want to stay away from as much fierce debate as possible. I might not even read the ArbCom page again.Legitimus (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Borderline intellectual functioning

An article that you have been involved in editing, Borderline intellectual functioning , has been proposed for a merge with Borderline mental retardation. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lova Falk talk 09:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
PS It was hard to find any major contributors to this article, but you seemed to be one of them...Lova Falk talk 09:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Mirror image discussions

Mirror image discussions (almost) occurring in the latest section here and the latest section here, simultaneously, is an odd coincidence. (I mention it merely as a curiosity, since you commented on the former.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed

An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
2. User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
3. User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Your reverts

Hi, I see that you have reverted me on ephebophilia and pederasty. I added these lines because I think it is important to add why many people with these sexual attractions believe that they are not doing anything wrong. Most people who are attracted to postpubescent adolescents are completely normal people who do not want to harm children. Van Hæften (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you have no source supporting that argument. Second, pedophiles (who target prepubescents) also do not believe they are doing anything wrong either and that molestation is good for the child too. It's a self-serving delusion well documented by medical science.Legitimus (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Chronophilia article

I just made this revert at the Chronophilia article, and might need your help watching that article/reverting mess like that (though, as you know, there is a bit of truth in it with regard to how some societies, especially American, British, and similar Western societies, view age disparity in sexual relationships). Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit revert on corporal punishment in the home - uk section

Hello

Thank you for your message regarding the above. I would like to put some paragraphs to you, with the appropriate link underneath to see if these would be classed as verifiable in order to have the above link updated.

The Children’s Act 2004 makes it illegal to hit a child if it causes bruising, swelling, cuts, grazes or scratches and this is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/children/parental_advice/500558.html

'However, physical punishment will be considered "unreasonable" if it leaves a mark on the child or if the child is hit with an implement such as a cane or a belt.

There are strict guidelines covering the use of reasonable punishment and it will not be possible to rely on the defence if you use severe physical punishment on your child which amounts to common assault or battery'.

http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/userfiles/Smacking.pdf

What rights do children have? The UK Government ratified the Convention on 16 December 1991. This means that the Government must make sure that every child in the UK has the rights that are listed in the Convention. The Government can do this by passing laws or by taking other action, including making sure that the rights in the Convention are widely known in the UK. • Protection from violence, exploitation, abuse, neglect and maltreatment: The Government must make sure you are protected from any type of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse or exploitation, while you are living with your parents or in the care of anyone else (article 19). Special procedures must be set up to help you if you have been the victim of abuse. • Torture: The Government must make sure that you are never tortured or never treated in a way that is cruel, inhuman or degrading (article 37). Sexual abuse: The Government must protect you from any form of sexual abuse (article 34). Work: The Government must make sure that you do not do any work that is harmful to you, or that interrupts your education (article 32). Website relating to above. http://www.lawstuff.org.uk/the-facts/what-are-childrens-rights

Is smacking illegal?

Under Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, it is unlawful for a parent or carer to smack their child, except where this amounts to ‘reasonable punishment’, though this is not defined in the legislation. As such, whether a smack amounts to reasonable punishment will depend on the circumstances of each case, taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack. Physical punishment will be considered ‘unreasonable’ if it leaves a mark on the child or if the child is hit with an implement such as a cane or a belt. http://www.protectingchildren.org.uk/cp-topics/disciplining/smacking-assault/

Peter Wanless, CEO of the NSPCC, said: 'There is no place for Dickensian work house punishments in modern families. Hitting a child with an implement - aside from being cruel and unjustifiable - is illegal in the UK. So if parents followed the so-called parenting guidance in this book to the letter they would be committing an act of child abuse.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/news-and-views/media-centre/press-releases/2013/Parenting-book-on-Amazon/public-call-for-amazon-to-remove-book_wdn99694.html

Chapter 4: Bases of liability 4.1 Principal and secondary offenders 4.1.1 Plainly where there are multiple participants in a crime, the various offenders will be almost inevitably playing different roles. The principal offender will be the one most directly and immediately linked with the actus reus but as regards the overwhelming majority of offences there may also be secondary parties, for example the party who hands the weapon to the perpetrator of a crime of violence or the party who shouts encouragement to the attacker. The fact of secondary participants does not create a multiplicity of offences. There remains one crime. The relevant statute law is section 8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as amended by Schedule 12 Criminal Law Act 1977 which provides as follows: ‘whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any act passed or to be passed shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender'. Having said this, liability as a secondary participant is a common law concept and, unless excluded explicitly or by implication, applicable to all offences whether indictable or summary notwithstanding the reference to ‘indictable offence' in section 8 above. Furthermore, there is an equivalent to section 8 as regards summary offences by virtue of section 44(1) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 which provides that ‘a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him' . Perhaps a little curiously given the above, some statutes make explicit that being an accessory to an offence is an offence. Websites relating to above: http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/criminalch4.htm

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc300_Inchoate_Liability_for_Assisting_and_Encouraging_Crime_report.pdf

I would appreciate your assistance and input. Regards Mary Marynic (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I just feel that it needs updating to reflect the whole, rather than just a part of the corporal punishment and the use of implements, as it appears to do at the moment. The reason for my looking at this is that someone has quoted this particular page and section of Wikipedia in a review on the use of corporal punishment and stated that using implements is not illegal because Wikipedia says so. I would appreciate your input and assistance in wording, or indeed if there is someone at Wikipedia who can look into this and update it appropriately. Many thanks, Mary Marynic (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, I appreciate your help. Marynic (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Legitimus, Thank you so much, I've read what you've put and I think it's really good. Thank you again for updating this, I really appreciate your patience, understanding and the help you've given. Mary Marynic (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Age of majority#Alternate Title Dispute

Legitimus, do you have anything to offer to the above linked dispute regarding the Age of majority article? For example, Iran actually designates 8-year-old girls as adults? And if they do, perhaps it has some connection to the Muhammad matter we are familiar with? If you don't think you can offer anything to this dispute, simply ignore this message. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This info was already provided to you in that section - The Iranian Civil Code, Article 1210, Note 1 - the age of majority for boys is fifteen lunar years [14y7m cal] and for girls nine lunar years [8y9m cal]. While an adult, contracts are void until she hits puberty. Marriage is set at 13 years. As to the rape issue it's crazy complicated: docs are available here: http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/english/human-rights-documents/iranian-codes/index.1.html JMJimmy (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked for Legitimus's help, if he can provide any on this matter. He can see what is stated at the relevant talk pages, and does not need the debates here on his talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have any extra knowledge about this. I'm neither Muslim nor speak any Farsi, I simply know a little more than the average guy off the street about the Muslim faith from reading and talking to Iranian and Tunisian friends. This is a matter of law of a nation and, as you can probably see, these matters are subject to wide interpretation by those in power in these countries. It's one of the reasons my aforementioned friends fled those areas at considerable risk and expense to themselves.Legitimus (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Walker (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DMV. 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) 08:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dance with Me (Old 97's song)

The article Dance with Me (Old 97's song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS.

While all constructive 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. Richhoncho (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Sexology) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turkish ney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman. 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) 11:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editing going at the Sex offender article and related articles

I'm probably going to need your help with this and this matter. It's about two "new editors" (ViperFace (talk · contribs) and Noterie (talk · contribs)) popping up to edit the same relatively inactive articles, with one of them (ViperFace) engaging in noticeable POV-pushing at various articles. They want me to believe that Noterie simply popped up to edit the same relatively inactive articles as ViperFace. The only articles so far that Noterie edited that ViperFace has not yet edited are the Hebephilia and Ephebophilia articles, and that is only after I told ViperFace that I would not tolerate his type of editing at the Child sexual abuse and Child pornography articles. If they are not WP:Sockpuppets or WP:Meatpuppets, this is a strange coincidence. I've already alerted NeilN and Herostratus to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please conduct the investigation, I have no connection to other user. Also if you wish you should see the talk page of [sex offender]. I'm being accused of POV-pushing for adding critical views that have been presented on several sex offender related articles, but I maintain that my edits are covered with sufficient references. I don't think that editing articles covering controversial topics "too keenly" should be reason to automatically flag POV-pushing and bias. Since accusations are thrown out, I might as well accuse Flyer22 of POV-oppressing. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, please check the history of the talk page to see where we are at. Some of my messsages got deleted by a bot. I don't know why. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your messages didn't get deleted by a bot. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Stolen valor

I would suggest that your article would look better with in line citations. What you have so far covers the subject fairly well except from a global view, which is always problematic. I think that the United States has the largest problem with stolen valor because we are involved in more military actions than most other nations; therefore, the subject matter appears more often in source material about the United States. Researching the "world view" could be a long process. I wish you luck with your search and if I can find any good source material for this article I will be in touch.

One other point that you made in your contact on the Military History Project page needs a clarification. There are five branches of the United States Armed Forces. I am perhaps too sensitive about this common misconception because I am a retired chief petty officer in the United States Coast Guard. By law (USC 14, sec. 1) the Coast Guard is a military service of the United States at all times.

If I can help with the article, I will. I hope you can find the sources you need to fill out the article, but don't let that stop you from taking the article to main space; it fills a hole in the encyclopedia nicely. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Also sorry about Coast Guard. It's been pointed out to me before but for some reason I keep forgetting it.Legitimus (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Straw man, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nut and Cherry picking. 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) 09:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Article as requested

The use of the word "approbation" is problematic, as it makes no sense in this sentence: "...the social withdrawal implied by their introversion is a result of the isolation engendered by their preference i.e., awareness of the social approbation and hostility that it evokes." To make sense of course it should read disapprobation and hostility, not "approbation and hostility."

OK, how about this?

Q: Why does this article characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder?

A: Fundamentally, Wikipedia articles need to reflect the consensus expressed in the best-available reliable sources. Those sources characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder, so this article must as well. Those sources state that a mental disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress, disability or a strong impulse to harm oneself or others. Because pedophilia creates a strong impulse to have sexual relations with prepubertal children (an act which is innately harmful), and people with the disorder that avoid doing so often suffer great distress, it is considered to be a mental disorder. This is what differentiates it from other types of sexual attractions or orientations that do not innately lead to harm or distress.

Q: Why isn't ______ point of view about pedophilia represented in this article?

A: Information on Wikipedia must rely first and foremost on reliable sources that can be independently verified. Sources come in many forms but some are clearly better than others. Peer-reviewed journal articles, major published manuals and textbooks are considered very reliable, while personal blog posts or anonymous forums are often nearly worthless and almost never acceptable. This article in particular is about a topic in the area of medicine, and so requires a much higher standard of source than, say, an article about a fictional television program. Another key matter in excluding some material is the concept of fringe theories; sources that represent extremely minor and often flawed views of a topic that are plainly contradicted by more rigorous and reliable sources. For pedophilia in particular there are many fringe points of view that exist, but few have any scientific backing verifiable by reliable sources, and many are outright discredited for questionable relevance or due to the author(s) clearly having ulterior motives, i.e. being a pedophile themselves attempting to justify or normalize their behavior.

Q: Why doesn't this article talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Mohammed)?

A: Covering this particular sub-topic is highly problematic for several reasons. The term "pedophilia" itself did not exist until the 19th century, and was coined specifically to refer to a mental illness with set criteria. While the condition no doubt existed prior to that, there was no way to categorize or name it, and thus no reliable source exists labeling any historical person as having "pedophilia." Labeling a historical person based on sexual behavior alone, especially a single recorded perpetration, is also problematic because not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. The person's internal mental "drive" to engage in such behavior is a key component in diagnosis, something that is almost always missing from historical accounts. A third problem is that the vast majority of such recorded instances in history that people often think of actually would not qualify, because the "child" victim was at or past puberty, whereas pedophilia only refers to prepubescent children.

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drew Pinsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HLN. 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) 09:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Notice of a discussion you may be interested in: [8] Lightbreather (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't you

You didn't add that tag. You must have misread the history. It was added by one User:Qwertyxp2000. Herostratus (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Retrograde ejaculation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page STDs. 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) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

James Shortt

Hello, Legitimus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sent you an email. SterlingSpots (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I see the trolls have gotten the James Shortt bio backup. This is a group that is determined to keep this page up, truth be dammed.

SterlingSpots (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't really deny that he lied about military service. It's well-documented. It's just that he isn't notable for much else, which I still contend is inappropriate of wikipedia.Legitimus (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Legitimus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Densmore

There's no nomination rationale or anything. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep your shirt on. I'm typing it.Legitimus (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Quoted you on pedophilia

Hey. Just letting you know that I quoted you on pedophilia. I decided against pinging you so that it wouldn't be taken as me trying to get you to comment there. Either way, I felt that you should know. And, yeah, I know that I'm probably wasting my time in that discussion; you and I both know how much people love to toss around the term pedophile and hold on to it even when it's pointed out that their usage of it is wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Legitimus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Legitimus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You can use my previous email or the one that is currently tied to my Wikipedia account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I very recently sent you an email; I got an error message. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No message received. Sorry.Legitimus (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The response I got was that my message wasn't delivered because the address couldn't be found or is unable to receive mail. I first sent the email directly from my email account (after we recently briefly discussed a matter). Then I sent you the email via Wikipedia. It seems you changed your email, but you still currently have "Email this user" enabled. I wondered if you just didn't want me to have access to emailing you anymore, which is odd, but I can be fine with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Legitimus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

James Shortt article

I have no idea why I have this article on my watchlist, but I do. I noticed your recent revert of an apparent SPA that removed the "Controversy" section. Now, I'm not complaining that you reverted. But what I'm seeing is that all of the controversial things in this section are referenced to The Sun tabloid and Daily Mail, neither of which are acceptable reference sources for BLPs. Had you considered reviewing the content being reinserted into this BLP when reverting? Of note, the same removal and reinsertion happened a few hours earlier, and I've left a similar message for the other editor involved. Just wondering whether you'd given consideration to this before reverting, or if you even read the content you were inserting, especially as you're now the editor of record inserting that material. Diff: [9]. Risker (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note - I've now made some copyedits removing the poorly sourced material per applicable policies. Would appreciate your thoughts on whether this article subject is, in fact, notable. I'm not seeing much more online from RS. Risker (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine with that removal on the polyamory page

I don't mind when you removed that Anapol article. I wasn't sure where to put it, but I thought it would work in the Difficulties section. When you say that "Difficulties" section was originally "Criticism," are you saying that those two sections should be combined? Because I'd say they are different, because the Difficulties section would focus on difficulties people have with polyamory, while criticism would be criticism people have of polyamory (mostly by people who aren't poly themselves, from what I guess). --Historyday01 (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Rogers, Politician

Greetings Legitimus.

First, thank you for your help on the James Short page. I see it is finally down. Hurrah!

I have been aske to try and improve the tone of the Wendy Rogers, Politician page and keep getting my updates removed by one of the admins. You will see nearly anything I try and update he immediately removes it. There is a section about a court case she was involved and I add the court's final decision and he says it is my interpretation of the results. I am not sure why he thinks that. I have a degree in Legal Studies and we always were told, the court's decision was the final word, unless it was appealed. Am I wrong about that in the world of wikipedia?

Ultimately, I would like to just clean up the page to be neutral. She is rather outspoken on some issues, but it is her right, but she was also one of the first 100 female pilots in the Air Force. Also, posting that she lost 4 elections near the top of her profile is not really all that relevant, in my opinion. The same information is listed in the article further down. I am trying to study the format for biographies for living people to make sure I am not doing something wrong.

Your help would be appreciated, SterlingSpots — Preceding unsigned comment added by SterlingSpots (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I can certainly take a look. I have never heard of her before; she is a complete stranger to me, so I can at least be neutral.Legitimus (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Legitimus I would appreciate that very much. The fact that you have no preconceived ideas about her will be great. I can supply a link to her biography on https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/copy-of-wendy-rogers. SterlingSpots (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

SterlingSpots I really think you need to read-up on Wikipedia sourcing standards. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

SterlingSpots, I just responded to you on the article Talk page. I would appreciate that if you canvas other editors for their support that you ping me. soibangla (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

SterlingSpots: Wait a minute. I have been aske to try and improve the tone of the Wendy Rogers. Really? By whom? soibangla (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I really think you need to read-up on Wikipedia sourcing standards. soibangla I am going to do that today. SterlingSpots (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Strictly Dr. Drew

The article Strictly Dr. Drew has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced stub since 2009

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)