Your claim that "The DSM-5 has never explicitly considered online pornography consumption for inclusion as an addiction, and has not, to date, accepted it." is patently false. Read pages 797-798 of DSM-5. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I see nothing there that refutes what I have written. The DSM formally considered "hypersexuality" and "internet addiction," but not "internet pornography addiction". That's a fact. You need to provide evidence of formal consideration and debate of this concept or restore what I wrote.
When the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was being drafted, experts considered a proposed diagnostic addiction called hypersexual disorder, which also included a pornography subtype. But in the end, reviewers determined that there wasn't enough evidence to include hypersexual disorder or its subtypes in the 2013 edition.
— Kirsten Weir, Is pornography addictive?
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Pornography addiction without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
17:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Pornography addiction, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. The statement that DSM-5 never explicitly considered viewing online pornography is not only original research but actually proven false by the quotation I offered in the talk page of the discussed article.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
17:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I have asked you multiple times to provide a source for your claims that the DSM team never formally evaluated including/excluding (online) pornography addiction. If you cannot provide a source for it, your claim will be deleted. Take time to read WP:OR and WP:VER, so that you will understand the basics of editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Chrislyte. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Pornography addiction. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
19:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Alert by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed
maintenance templates from
Effects of pornography. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
01:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove
maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Effects of pornography, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
01:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaborlewis, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Your claim that "The DSM-5 has never explicitly considered online pornography consumption for inclusion as an addiction, and has not, to date, accepted it." is patently false. Read pages 797-798 of DSM-5. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I see nothing there that refutes what I have written. The DSM formally considered "hypersexuality" and "internet addiction," but not "internet pornography addiction". That's a fact. You need to provide evidence of formal consideration and debate of this concept or restore what I wrote.
When the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was being drafted, experts considered a proposed diagnostic addiction called hypersexual disorder, which also included a pornography subtype. But in the end, reviewers determined that there wasn't enough evidence to include hypersexual disorder or its subtypes in the 2013 edition.
— Kirsten Weir, Is pornography addictive?
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Pornography addiction without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
17:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Pornography addiction, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. The statement that DSM-5 never explicitly considered viewing online pornography is not only original research but actually proven false by the quotation I offered in the talk page of the discussed article.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
17:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I have asked you multiple times to provide a source for your claims that the DSM team never formally evaluated including/excluding (online) pornography addiction. If you cannot provide a source for it, your claim will be deleted. Take time to read WP:OR and WP:VER, so that you will understand the basics of editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Chrislyte. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Pornography addiction. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
19:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Alert by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed
maintenance templates from
Effects of pornography. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
01:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove
maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Effects of pornography, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
01:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaborlewis, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.