|
Hi, Radvo. I
welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or put {{helpme}}
(and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. You also might want to consider being "
adopted" by an experienced user who would show you how wikipedia works through a program called adopt-a-user. Again, welcome!
—
S Marshall
T/
C
20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's nice to be welcomed here. Thank you for your e-mail. This is the first I heard of the adopt-a-user program. Is this a good idea for me?
TruthinWriting has proposed a new section that summarizes the 1998 Rind report in 600 words or so. His first version of the summary was completely redacted, and IMHO he was given a litany of poor reasons why. That redaction turned out well, however, because TruthinWriting wrote a better second version. He placed a copy of his second proposal on the TALK page. It would be great if people who visit this page would comment on it on the TALK page. Are you in a position to make a comment there to get some genuine conversation going? Do you think the average person on Wikipedia would understand the summary?
It seems that the three people who have commented on the TALK page in the past week or so, are all from the Pedophilia Article Watch. I'd like to attract to this page professional psychologists, sexologists, and statisticians who might have more to offer. (But they may rather keep their distance from this topic.) Failing that, I'd like to figure out how to keep the energetic posters, like some who have posted there in the past, to keep working on improving this topic.
Have you been on Wikipedia long? Do you have any tips or history of this topic to share with me that I wouldn't see in the archive?
I would like to make this article better.
Adopt-a-user is completely optional. I'd recommend it for anyone who feels daunted or confused by Wikipedia, which can be a complicated place. However, if you feel comfortable here and confident of being able to take part without one-to-one support then it's not necessary at all.
I'm afraid I have no knowledge whatsoever of the topic area in which you're editing. The reason I welcomed you is because at the time, I was keeping an eye on new users' contributions to Wikipedia—I do that from time to time, partly so that I can welcome anyone new, and partly as a way of quietly getting rid of vandalism when it's added (because vandals are blocked quickly, most vandalism comes from new accounts). I saw that you were editing productively, but that nobody had ever posted to your talk page, so I simply dropped by to say hi.
I'm afraid I don't know anything about the Pedophilia Article Watch, but I do see that a user called Herostratus has posted to the talk page and in my experience he's sensible, helpful and approachable. I suggest directing your questions to him on his talk page!
I've been around since mid-2006. What I mainly do is translate articles from foreign-language Wikipedias, but I've also written various articles about rural life, and history, in the United Kingdom.
All the best— S Marshall T/ C 09:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Radvo. I saw the note you left Herostratus and then took a look at what has been going on at the Rind et al. controversy article. I'd like to offer you a few tips. Firstly, you are rather guilty of writing walls of text. Please try and condense your points further. I see a lot of cases where are you are repeating points to add emphasis. Please try and keep it shorter - remember, everyone editing here is doing so on a voluntary basis and during their own free time, they may not have that much time to read through paragraph upon paragraph. That part of my advice can be ignored however, if you really feel that's how you must communicate. What can't be ignored so easily is your attitude. Things like "How am I doing, Flyer22? Did I learn the specific lesson about truth vs. reliable sources well? I'm a grade grubber. Can I get an "A"? If I don't yet get an A, can I do some "makeup work" to improve my grade? For extra credit, how about if I get a former editor or two banned for making unverifiable claims? Can I get an A+ then?" aren't helpful at all. They are a waste of space. Please try to stick to the point and not be rude to other editors. Finally, the last message you left Herostratus also doesn't sit right. Suggesting that he is not "right for the work" or not working productively is impolite and completely unhelpful. Herostratus has been working in that area for a long time and is respected and careful editor. He is not the problem here. If you want the editors working in that area to work well with you, respect them. Respect that they might not have a lot of free time and respect that they've been here longer than you and know what they're doing. I really hope that you can stick around and become a valued editor here. Good luck, OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I haven't touched that article in 2 weeks and even them I didn't redact anything. I also haven't been part of any discussion since 12/19. I don't have time for this article right now. Legitimus ( talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
To enable section editing, you must alter your preferences. Based on how my account is configured, you would log in, click "My preferences" at the top-right of the screen, select the "Editing" tab, and in the second section ("Advanced options") click the third dialogue box ("Enable section editing via [edit] links"). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 02:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Radvo. Let me introduce myself as a member of the Arbitration Committe on the English Wikipedia. Since it has become the subject of discussion, I thought it might help to explain further. You will, I am sure, have read WP:CHILDPROTECT, our policy relating to child protection issues. You will have noted that Wikipedia policy forbids editing which "advocate(s) inappropriate adult–child relationships." Linking to sites which advocate same, or belonging to organisations which advocate same, are regarded by the community as evidence of advocacy for such relationships. The same is not true of citing academic research which challenges current society norms or legislation, but in such a sensitive area, it must be true academic research. Pointing to the websites of advocacy organisations which happen to contain copies of such research, rather than citing the research itself, is likely to lead to trouble.
You might also like to read WP:EL, our policy on external links in general. You will see from it that linking to anything that is (or probably is) a copyright violation is forbidden. It also contains more general guidance on external links. While you will note that sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources may be linked to ( Memory Alpha is a good example) or IMDB) are acceptable, still it is necessary to avoid any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, links to chat or discussion forums/groups, and links to advertising or self-promotional sites.
In general, if you are repeatedly reverted by other editors, it is well worth reviewing the reasons given, to see if there is a question of policy, and not just a dispute on content. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Elen,
I read your message. I assure you that I want to understand and follow Wikipedia policy. I have a special interest in editing at Rind et al. controversy, but to do this competently, a Wikipedia editor needs to have access to dozens of high quality scholarly articles. One of the big problems I find in working on this Wikipedia site is that editors who have no access to the scholarly articles and have not read the articles are nevertheless editing (simply from the abstracts) and putting words into the scholars mouth that reflect their "common sense" but are not in the full text of the articles. Editors need more access to the scholarly articles, and I am trying to solve this problem both for editors and for readers.
I have some points of clarification about linking to full text of scholarly articles on the TALK page that probably are a copyright violation. Would you or someone who deals with copyright problems please take a look, for example, at this website: [ Rind et al. controversy at Slash the seats]. Please take a look at the footnotes on this webpage. This website accurately mirrors our Wikipedia's page, with updates everyday, but, unlike Wikipedia, it gives its readers access to the full text of some/many of the high quality scholarly articles that Wikipedia editors put in the footnotes. So this mirror page differs only in the footnote section, giving its readers much better access to the full text of many of the citations.
(1) May I link to this Slash the Seats page on our TALK page, so other editors on our topic can get access to the full text of many articles Wikipedia editors cite? Or would this be considered "contributing" to a copyright violation?
(2) The full text of the Rind et al article (about which this article is based) is posted to the Boston University site at http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/sc563/mcgu/sc56310.pdf. The full text of this article seems to be from a photocopy of the original article in the Psychological Bulletin. I assume it is genuine and not altered, because it is a photocopy, and the University would have no interest in altering the text for its students. Is this "probably" a copyright violation or does the University have a legal right to put this article on the web. If you think this link is legal, may the Wikipedia article link to this Boston College site on the main page? or the talk page for editor use?
(3) If much or all of an article can be located through a http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search Google scholar search, how do I determine whether I can link to that article from our Wikipedia article page, without contributing to copyright infringement? Should we assume that they are all copyright infringements? Would this assumption also apply to offering the full text of a scholarly article for a short time so all editors could read and discuss the scholarly article on the TALK page? BTW, Google finds references on the Ipce site in the Netherlands which the Wikipedia community regards as an advocacy site. IMHO, it is an information site, because it says it is an information site, though Wikipedia may incorrectly regard it as an advocacy site. I can live with what the community has decided, but it would be good if Wikipedia administration would make a list of all the banned advocacy sites. I would be sure to avoid all banned sites. Or why doesn't the Wikipedia web programmer just make these banned sites (like the Ipce site) impossible to link to. The Ipce has a huge collection of the full text of high quality scholarly articles directly related to the Rind et al. controversy. Much of the controversy was in the academic and scholarly community. Of course, I will fully accept your guidance on this, as dictated above, but I just wanted to voice my thoughts to you about this.
(4) Some of the links in the Wikipedia article's footnotes section on the Slash the seats mirror website offer its readers the full text of the articles in foreign libraries or links put on the web by college professors overseas who want the full text of the articles to be accessed by students in his/her class. Should I assume that these foreign libraries and professors overseas have a legal right to do this, or, for Wikipedia purposes, are these libraries and professors (many overseas) contributing to U.S. copyright infringement? May our Rind et al. article link to them, so Wikipedia readers (or just the editors on the TALK pages) can have access to the full text of the articles in the footnotes? Or get access to article we are considering adding to the footnotes?
Is there anything written up, besides the links you suggest above, to give me further guidance about copyright violation? If there are other knowledgeable persons who can answer any future questions better than you, would you please refer them to this page, or please give me the way to contact them. Thanks. Radvo ( talk) 08:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I have had to collapse your recent comment at Talk:Rind et al. controversy as it is not compatible with WP:TPG. Repeatedly posting long messages can have the effect of discouraging other editors from becoming involved in an issue, or even from finding out what the issue is. Accordingly, it is essential that messages should omit all superfluous observations (nothing about other editors, and nothing about other topics). Further, messages should be focused on actionable proposals to improve the article (for example, we all hope that better writers will become available, and there is no point in making that observation on an article talk page).
If you would like to ask about procedures used at Wikipedia, it is likely that a reply here would result in comments from other editors. Alternatively, general questions (not related to other editors) can be asked at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I have been unclear, but your latest message at the article talk page was not an improvement on the first and I have removed it. Please show respect for other editors by trying to understand the standard procedures that apply at Wikipedia. There are hundreds of contentious articles where talk pages could be misused and monopolised by new editors who post long messages with unclear objectives. To avoid disruption, that cannot be allowed to occur. Posting images such as File:Mastodon color.jpg and File:Ottoman surrender of Jerusalem restored.jpg cannot assist the development of the article. Comments on an article talk should very rarely refer to another editor, yet your message ( diff) refers to several other editors, and yourself. Please do not do that. If you wish to discuss another editor's behavior, use the links I provided on the article talk page ( WP:WQA or WP:ANI). An article talk page must focus on suggestions for improvements to the article without tendentiously long and hard to follow messages. If you have a question about Wikipedia's procedures, please reply here. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's generally considered polite to notify other editors if they are being discussed, see WP:NOTIFY. In addition, per WP:TALKNEW, normally one would not name another editor in section headings. I've notified Herostratus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Attorney: Your message raised the issue of verbal abuse in a dramatic way. I felt your solidarity. "Piranhas" in your e-mail address was a funny touch. If we are verbally abused enough, we become like piranhas ourselves, ready to bite, and tear apart whoever is nearby. Find a way to better incorporate yourself within the legal system, if possible, and live well. Don't hurt those institutions that would be your friends. Thank you for reaching out to me with your unique offer to help. That was the best you could do from that distance. I assume you will check to see if I received your message. So here it is. Good luck with your law practice. Radvo ( talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Please try a different approach at Talk:Rind et al. controversy. Apparently you are frustrated about something, and are expressing your thoughts on that page. However, the article in question is just one of many hundreds of contentious articles where teams of people bicker and edit war for months, and some thought will show that, for all its faults, Wikipedia must have procedures that eventually deal with disruption. Please be aware that while editors are absurdly tolerant of bad behavior (such as repeatedly posting messages that are not focused on actionable improvements to the article), eventually repercussions do occur. I am taking the time to write this in the hope that you will likewise take the time to listen to some of the advice that has been offered because the current activity is not going to succeed. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I am keeping a log of advise for new comers based on personal experience here as a new comer myself. This is the very beginning of a draft I plan to offer to new comers here, and this will be collaboratively revised in accordance to Wiki policies over time. Feel free to contribute to improve this welcome letter.
I have removed my draft "letter" as confrontational and inconsistent with Wikipedia spirit and policy. I made my point. Improving the climate for new users here can be accomplished in many ways. -- Radvo ( talk) 00:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to clarify some matters regarding our discussions at Talk:Rind et al. controversy. I know that it is very hard for people new to Wikipedia to accept, but I am one of many editors who have no ill feelings, and who are very hard to offend, and who are trying hard to not offend others unduly. I added "unduly" because plain speaking is very important at Wikipedia—there is no point phrasing a comment so politely that it is misunderstood, and there is no point hiding a problem. Accordingly I know that some are offended by what I have done or written, but that outcome is never my intention—any offense is an unfortunate by-product of my agenda, namely to defend the encyclopedia. Please take me exactly as I appear, namely, an experienced editor who is trying to recommend certain procedures at the article talk page. As a working hypothesis, imagine that what I have written about Wikipedia's procedures is correct, and consider how the activity at the talk page looks to me: if I am correct, it follows that several responses to me have been inappropriate. Notice that at no stage have I attempted to obstruct you or your edits—if I am correct, all I have done is to recommend proper use of the talk page (and I have obstructed some of your comments). Try me out—instead of trying to teach me Wikipedia's policies, ask for advice if a procedural problem arises. I have no agenda other than trying to assist the encyclopedia.
I just looked at your contributions to see the areas in which you edit. That led me to look at User:Radvo/sandbox ( permalink). I understand that you are just preparing some thoughts—that's fine. However, a better strategy at Wikipedia is to respond directly to issues—if I say X and Y, you might say that X is not correct because the wording of [something] contradicts it, and that Y indicates I have failed to read [something] because if I had I would know that so-and-so says Y is wrong. Direct and plain talk is how things progress.
There is one point from the sandbox that needs a response: you quoted me as saying "a trivial matter". Are you referring to my comment "It's a trivial issue, but FYI what I said was 100% accurate."? If so, I was saying that I wanted to raise a trivial issue, namely that my comment about edits by a sockpuppet was correct (and I continued with a brief explanation). I have never referred to anything connected with the article as "trivial". Again, the sooner the side issues are ignored (things like my "agenda", who said what, sockpuppets, and Wikipedia's policies), the sooner any content issues will be resolved. By the way, please never repeat the term "legally actionable" as that sets off alarm bells among onlookers—I can see what you are getting at (although why you don't just use plain language to say what you think should be changed eludes me), but many people might interpret such comments as conflicting with WP:NLT, and that is a hard rule which is strictly enforced (I will explain why, if you like, but please take my advice and don't say anything which could be misconstrued along legal lines). Johnuniq ( talk) 10:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to inform you but I have made a thread at ANI about your recent post to the Rind talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Rind_et_al._controversy_and_user:_Radvo_consistently_failing_to_comply_with_talk_page_guidelines OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You have been
indefinitely blocked by the
Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the
guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by
emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
test Radvo ( talk) 23:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Herostratus: You wrote at the Rind et al. Talk page:
“ | "Just a couple points: we're not entirely rule-bound, no. It's a wiki not a court of law. | ” |
Thanks for writing that. That's especially comforting to hear from you. Since we are often (but not always) on the opposite sides, we also both like to go back to the Wikipedia rules and policies when we can't achieve our ends on the wiki in more reptilian ways. See: you were able to find some common ground with me. That's a gift, and I appreciate the gift. And there is probably more if we had more time together. A deep respect for the law makes things function better, but it's very important to build respect for law and order by (1) developing rules and policies that are sensitively and intelligently thought through and based on a scientific acknowledgement to the human experience, and (2) rules are consistently, wisely and compassionately enforced to establish order and build respect, without unnecessary pain and punishment for those at the very bottom of the heap, if possible.
You continued:
“ | Also, I'd recommend going light on throwing around words such as fascism etc., and in particular I'd be careful when using legal-type language such as "violation of... copyright law" and so forth | ” |
I accept your recommendations, as you obviously know what works around here better than I do. I will drop the use of the word "Fascism" in whatever will follow from here. In point of fact, there is much to be feared about Fascism; hundreds of millions of people (including members of my extended family) have come to untimely ends because we have not developed ways to effectively deal with such powerful ideas. But this may not be the time and place to do much of that difficult work here. We do what we can to raise consciousness about the whiff of Fascism, and try to learn the limits of each situation and stay within its bounds. I usually don't have a lot of problem with working within the limits and boundaries, unless they are fuzzy in my mind. I usually find some space to wiggle around in within bounds. That doesn't mean that I don't test the actual limits just a little a bit in a new situation, until I get the hang of things.
As far as copyright law goes, I am genuinely confused by the complexity of, and widespread disregard for, that law as it applied to the Internet and the third world. I support the freedom of ideas and suspect the many violations of copyright law are ignored, especially where there is little monetary consideration, because many also believe that progress on the INTERNET requires free and speedy access to textual information. When push comes to shove, I am more concerned with resisting censorship than preventing the spread of ideas by insisting on my copyright. My loose talk about violating my right to my own writing was part of kitchen sink blustering. It works like this: throw out all the accusations that I know about, and watch later which ones stick, and ignore the ones that don't stick. If the charge of copyright violation doesn't stick, I won't use it because the use of accusations that don't stick actually weakens my case. In that way, your recommendation is helpful to me. I have removed that "draft letter" from my talk page as too provocative for these genteel circumstances, and it violates a number of Wikipedia policies that I actually like and respect. I never saw that Wikipedia is not a battleground text before. Obviously, the draft letter is still in my user page history, but it's removal by me conveys the idea that I want to withdraw the provocation to make peace. There is an art to this, and I have yet to learn what the limits here are. I like and am willing to work with this: "Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints." What are those "broad principles?" Maybe I will have the opportunity to work with you on finding them.
I was feeling lonely when User:Truthinwriting and User:Juice Leskinen did not return, as it is hard to edit here with no allies at all. It was, in part, the loneliness with no competent editors who have studied the scholarly literature that motivated me to write that draft letter. There is a strong British manners flavor to how Wikipedia is run that is foreign to someone like me who grew up in a large urban rust-belt city with many "minorities" who are dirt poor. People around here fight like cats and dogs to hang onto the little they have; genteel British manners are not a survival skill here. This is an encyclopedia, not a political revolution. I will not use the words "Fascism" and "violation of copyright law" in what follows next around here. Thanks again for your comment.
I have been blocked by a arbitration committee member, User:Casliber, who is a psychiatrist in Australia, and who edits a lot of articles about Australian fauna. Now I have done it: I'm being shipped off as an exhibit of strange fauna to a psychiatrist in Australia! :-) I am able to read everything on Wikipedia and can edit only here on my own talk page. The community discussion noticeboard was closed before I even knew about it; they were surely afraid of some wall of words from me and chose not to expose themselves and the public to any more of that, thank you! I sent Dr. User:Casliber a very short e-mail yesterday, but obviously have not had any response yet. I have been through things like this before. I am considered a high risk, high gain kind of person, and "groups" that have taken a chance on "letting me in" have all been very pleased with the final result of my work. My attitudes (but not necessarily my skills, for lack of practice) are better suited to the higher levels of the establishment than for street fights in the barrio. So far. And I understand, you can't win them all...
I assume you are quite knowledgeable about these arbitration matters, and how they do not always go the way we expect them to. Any thoughts about how I might best handle this? Are you (and user:Johnuniq) willing to put in a good word with User:Casliber on my behalf, so I can finish the job at Rind et al. Controversy I set out to do? I don't know what to expect and have no friends or allies here. The two allies I had are both now blocked.
Specifically, Dr. Rind implied that he would appreciate it I could find a way to do something to soften the part of Rind et al. Controversy that unnecessarily repeats detail of the Dr. Laura libel, she put out on the radio to millions of listeners 14 years ago. And also I am looking to find some verifiable source, as you suggested to me before, that contradicts the secondary source now used (the Dutch e-mail newsletter quoted by Salter?), to show that Dr. Rind did not in fact attend the December 1998 Rotterdam conference. Ironically, he says that he did not accept that Rotterdam speaker invitation for exactly the same reasons that Salter and Dallam want to associate him with "a pedophile conference" -- which it was not anyway. The Dec. 1998 Rotterdam conference was sponsored by a religion-based social work foundation that reached out to social outcasts (and to the social workers and other professionals who provided professional services for them). The motivation for the conference was based on Rev. Hnas Visser's deep liberation-type Christianity that is hard for those who are not deeply religious to understand. Dr. Rind told me his current neighbors have read Wikipedia's Rind et al. Controversy, and the part they say is most embarrassing is the part that says he accepted the invitation to the December 1998 Rotterdam "pedophile" conference. Otherwise they refer to him as some kind of "controversial" writer! His neighbors seem to subscribe to the genteel British-like manners that Wikipedia endorses. Dr. Rind kept his distance from that 1998 Rotterdam conference. Wikipedia unfairly still gets him shamed for having attended it anyway because some biased secondary source claims he was there! I got myself foolishly banned before I could correct that mistake for him. Any help you (and User:Johnuniq?) might offer in this regard will be much appreciated and might be quite appreciated by Dr. Rind, and will not be forgotten by me. Not knowing that I would be blocked, I wrote a nice, conciliatory message for User:Johnuniq on his talk page, but lost it all when I tried to save it and could not recover it. Apparently I was blocked during the very time I was writing that message and didn't know about the block until I tried to save the message to User:Johnuniq's TALK page. It was really quite good, one of my better letters. Too bad it was lost. Maybe it is best not to approach the persons who are more directly involved in the current dispute until it completely blows over.
BTW User:Johnuniq's statement at the Arbitration Message Board was honest and there were no lies or embellishments that I remember. I appreciate having to deal with Johnuniq's truth and not have to deny a bunch of lies. Dealing with his truthful statement before the Arbitration Committee makes my experience before the Committee less contaminated than if I had to deal with filthy lies.
If we have no further contact, I wish you all well here at Wikipedia. -- Radvo ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi, Radvo. I
welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or put {{helpme}}
(and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. You also might want to consider being "
adopted" by an experienced user who would show you how wikipedia works through a program called adopt-a-user. Again, welcome!
—
S Marshall
T/
C
20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's nice to be welcomed here. Thank you for your e-mail. This is the first I heard of the adopt-a-user program. Is this a good idea for me?
TruthinWriting has proposed a new section that summarizes the 1998 Rind report in 600 words or so. His first version of the summary was completely redacted, and IMHO he was given a litany of poor reasons why. That redaction turned out well, however, because TruthinWriting wrote a better second version. He placed a copy of his second proposal on the TALK page. It would be great if people who visit this page would comment on it on the TALK page. Are you in a position to make a comment there to get some genuine conversation going? Do you think the average person on Wikipedia would understand the summary?
It seems that the three people who have commented on the TALK page in the past week or so, are all from the Pedophilia Article Watch. I'd like to attract to this page professional psychologists, sexologists, and statisticians who might have more to offer. (But they may rather keep their distance from this topic.) Failing that, I'd like to figure out how to keep the energetic posters, like some who have posted there in the past, to keep working on improving this topic.
Have you been on Wikipedia long? Do you have any tips or history of this topic to share with me that I wouldn't see in the archive?
I would like to make this article better.
Adopt-a-user is completely optional. I'd recommend it for anyone who feels daunted or confused by Wikipedia, which can be a complicated place. However, if you feel comfortable here and confident of being able to take part without one-to-one support then it's not necessary at all.
I'm afraid I have no knowledge whatsoever of the topic area in which you're editing. The reason I welcomed you is because at the time, I was keeping an eye on new users' contributions to Wikipedia—I do that from time to time, partly so that I can welcome anyone new, and partly as a way of quietly getting rid of vandalism when it's added (because vandals are blocked quickly, most vandalism comes from new accounts). I saw that you were editing productively, but that nobody had ever posted to your talk page, so I simply dropped by to say hi.
I'm afraid I don't know anything about the Pedophilia Article Watch, but I do see that a user called Herostratus has posted to the talk page and in my experience he's sensible, helpful and approachable. I suggest directing your questions to him on his talk page!
I've been around since mid-2006. What I mainly do is translate articles from foreign-language Wikipedias, but I've also written various articles about rural life, and history, in the United Kingdom.
All the best— S Marshall T/ C 09:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Radvo. I saw the note you left Herostratus and then took a look at what has been going on at the Rind et al. controversy article. I'd like to offer you a few tips. Firstly, you are rather guilty of writing walls of text. Please try and condense your points further. I see a lot of cases where are you are repeating points to add emphasis. Please try and keep it shorter - remember, everyone editing here is doing so on a voluntary basis and during their own free time, they may not have that much time to read through paragraph upon paragraph. That part of my advice can be ignored however, if you really feel that's how you must communicate. What can't be ignored so easily is your attitude. Things like "How am I doing, Flyer22? Did I learn the specific lesson about truth vs. reliable sources well? I'm a grade grubber. Can I get an "A"? If I don't yet get an A, can I do some "makeup work" to improve my grade? For extra credit, how about if I get a former editor or two banned for making unverifiable claims? Can I get an A+ then?" aren't helpful at all. They are a waste of space. Please try to stick to the point and not be rude to other editors. Finally, the last message you left Herostratus also doesn't sit right. Suggesting that he is not "right for the work" or not working productively is impolite and completely unhelpful. Herostratus has been working in that area for a long time and is respected and careful editor. He is not the problem here. If you want the editors working in that area to work well with you, respect them. Respect that they might not have a lot of free time and respect that they've been here longer than you and know what they're doing. I really hope that you can stick around and become a valued editor here. Good luck, OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I haven't touched that article in 2 weeks and even them I didn't redact anything. I also haven't been part of any discussion since 12/19. I don't have time for this article right now. Legitimus ( talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
To enable section editing, you must alter your preferences. Based on how my account is configured, you would log in, click "My preferences" at the top-right of the screen, select the "Editing" tab, and in the second section ("Advanced options") click the third dialogue box ("Enable section editing via [edit] links"). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 02:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Radvo. Let me introduce myself as a member of the Arbitration Committe on the English Wikipedia. Since it has become the subject of discussion, I thought it might help to explain further. You will, I am sure, have read WP:CHILDPROTECT, our policy relating to child protection issues. You will have noted that Wikipedia policy forbids editing which "advocate(s) inappropriate adult–child relationships." Linking to sites which advocate same, or belonging to organisations which advocate same, are regarded by the community as evidence of advocacy for such relationships. The same is not true of citing academic research which challenges current society norms or legislation, but in such a sensitive area, it must be true academic research. Pointing to the websites of advocacy organisations which happen to contain copies of such research, rather than citing the research itself, is likely to lead to trouble.
You might also like to read WP:EL, our policy on external links in general. You will see from it that linking to anything that is (or probably is) a copyright violation is forbidden. It also contains more general guidance on external links. While you will note that sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources may be linked to ( Memory Alpha is a good example) or IMDB) are acceptable, still it is necessary to avoid any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, links to chat or discussion forums/groups, and links to advertising or self-promotional sites.
In general, if you are repeatedly reverted by other editors, it is well worth reviewing the reasons given, to see if there is a question of policy, and not just a dispute on content. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Elen,
I read your message. I assure you that I want to understand and follow Wikipedia policy. I have a special interest in editing at Rind et al. controversy, but to do this competently, a Wikipedia editor needs to have access to dozens of high quality scholarly articles. One of the big problems I find in working on this Wikipedia site is that editors who have no access to the scholarly articles and have not read the articles are nevertheless editing (simply from the abstracts) and putting words into the scholars mouth that reflect their "common sense" but are not in the full text of the articles. Editors need more access to the scholarly articles, and I am trying to solve this problem both for editors and for readers.
I have some points of clarification about linking to full text of scholarly articles on the TALK page that probably are a copyright violation. Would you or someone who deals with copyright problems please take a look, for example, at this website: [ Rind et al. controversy at Slash the seats]. Please take a look at the footnotes on this webpage. This website accurately mirrors our Wikipedia's page, with updates everyday, but, unlike Wikipedia, it gives its readers access to the full text of some/many of the high quality scholarly articles that Wikipedia editors put in the footnotes. So this mirror page differs only in the footnote section, giving its readers much better access to the full text of many of the citations.
(1) May I link to this Slash the Seats page on our TALK page, so other editors on our topic can get access to the full text of many articles Wikipedia editors cite? Or would this be considered "contributing" to a copyright violation?
(2) The full text of the Rind et al article (about which this article is based) is posted to the Boston University site at http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/sc563/mcgu/sc56310.pdf. The full text of this article seems to be from a photocopy of the original article in the Psychological Bulletin. I assume it is genuine and not altered, because it is a photocopy, and the University would have no interest in altering the text for its students. Is this "probably" a copyright violation or does the University have a legal right to put this article on the web. If you think this link is legal, may the Wikipedia article link to this Boston College site on the main page? or the talk page for editor use?
(3) If much or all of an article can be located through a http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search Google scholar search, how do I determine whether I can link to that article from our Wikipedia article page, without contributing to copyright infringement? Should we assume that they are all copyright infringements? Would this assumption also apply to offering the full text of a scholarly article for a short time so all editors could read and discuss the scholarly article on the TALK page? BTW, Google finds references on the Ipce site in the Netherlands which the Wikipedia community regards as an advocacy site. IMHO, it is an information site, because it says it is an information site, though Wikipedia may incorrectly regard it as an advocacy site. I can live with what the community has decided, but it would be good if Wikipedia administration would make a list of all the banned advocacy sites. I would be sure to avoid all banned sites. Or why doesn't the Wikipedia web programmer just make these banned sites (like the Ipce site) impossible to link to. The Ipce has a huge collection of the full text of high quality scholarly articles directly related to the Rind et al. controversy. Much of the controversy was in the academic and scholarly community. Of course, I will fully accept your guidance on this, as dictated above, but I just wanted to voice my thoughts to you about this.
(4) Some of the links in the Wikipedia article's footnotes section on the Slash the seats mirror website offer its readers the full text of the articles in foreign libraries or links put on the web by college professors overseas who want the full text of the articles to be accessed by students in his/her class. Should I assume that these foreign libraries and professors overseas have a legal right to do this, or, for Wikipedia purposes, are these libraries and professors (many overseas) contributing to U.S. copyright infringement? May our Rind et al. article link to them, so Wikipedia readers (or just the editors on the TALK pages) can have access to the full text of the articles in the footnotes? Or get access to article we are considering adding to the footnotes?
Is there anything written up, besides the links you suggest above, to give me further guidance about copyright violation? If there are other knowledgeable persons who can answer any future questions better than you, would you please refer them to this page, or please give me the way to contact them. Thanks. Radvo ( talk) 08:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I have had to collapse your recent comment at Talk:Rind et al. controversy as it is not compatible with WP:TPG. Repeatedly posting long messages can have the effect of discouraging other editors from becoming involved in an issue, or even from finding out what the issue is. Accordingly, it is essential that messages should omit all superfluous observations (nothing about other editors, and nothing about other topics). Further, messages should be focused on actionable proposals to improve the article (for example, we all hope that better writers will become available, and there is no point in making that observation on an article talk page).
If you would like to ask about procedures used at Wikipedia, it is likely that a reply here would result in comments from other editors. Alternatively, general questions (not related to other editors) can be asked at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I have been unclear, but your latest message at the article talk page was not an improvement on the first and I have removed it. Please show respect for other editors by trying to understand the standard procedures that apply at Wikipedia. There are hundreds of contentious articles where talk pages could be misused and monopolised by new editors who post long messages with unclear objectives. To avoid disruption, that cannot be allowed to occur. Posting images such as File:Mastodon color.jpg and File:Ottoman surrender of Jerusalem restored.jpg cannot assist the development of the article. Comments on an article talk should very rarely refer to another editor, yet your message ( diff) refers to several other editors, and yourself. Please do not do that. If you wish to discuss another editor's behavior, use the links I provided on the article talk page ( WP:WQA or WP:ANI). An article talk page must focus on suggestions for improvements to the article without tendentiously long and hard to follow messages. If you have a question about Wikipedia's procedures, please reply here. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's generally considered polite to notify other editors if they are being discussed, see WP:NOTIFY. In addition, per WP:TALKNEW, normally one would not name another editor in section headings. I've notified Herostratus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Attorney: Your message raised the issue of verbal abuse in a dramatic way. I felt your solidarity. "Piranhas" in your e-mail address was a funny touch. If we are verbally abused enough, we become like piranhas ourselves, ready to bite, and tear apart whoever is nearby. Find a way to better incorporate yourself within the legal system, if possible, and live well. Don't hurt those institutions that would be your friends. Thank you for reaching out to me with your unique offer to help. That was the best you could do from that distance. I assume you will check to see if I received your message. So here it is. Good luck with your law practice. Radvo ( talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Please try a different approach at Talk:Rind et al. controversy. Apparently you are frustrated about something, and are expressing your thoughts on that page. However, the article in question is just one of many hundreds of contentious articles where teams of people bicker and edit war for months, and some thought will show that, for all its faults, Wikipedia must have procedures that eventually deal with disruption. Please be aware that while editors are absurdly tolerant of bad behavior (such as repeatedly posting messages that are not focused on actionable improvements to the article), eventually repercussions do occur. I am taking the time to write this in the hope that you will likewise take the time to listen to some of the advice that has been offered because the current activity is not going to succeed. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I am keeping a log of advise for new comers based on personal experience here as a new comer myself. This is the very beginning of a draft I plan to offer to new comers here, and this will be collaboratively revised in accordance to Wiki policies over time. Feel free to contribute to improve this welcome letter.
I have removed my draft "letter" as confrontational and inconsistent with Wikipedia spirit and policy. I made my point. Improving the climate for new users here can be accomplished in many ways. -- Radvo ( talk) 00:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to clarify some matters regarding our discussions at Talk:Rind et al. controversy. I know that it is very hard for people new to Wikipedia to accept, but I am one of many editors who have no ill feelings, and who are very hard to offend, and who are trying hard to not offend others unduly. I added "unduly" because plain speaking is very important at Wikipedia—there is no point phrasing a comment so politely that it is misunderstood, and there is no point hiding a problem. Accordingly I know that some are offended by what I have done or written, but that outcome is never my intention—any offense is an unfortunate by-product of my agenda, namely to defend the encyclopedia. Please take me exactly as I appear, namely, an experienced editor who is trying to recommend certain procedures at the article talk page. As a working hypothesis, imagine that what I have written about Wikipedia's procedures is correct, and consider how the activity at the talk page looks to me: if I am correct, it follows that several responses to me have been inappropriate. Notice that at no stage have I attempted to obstruct you or your edits—if I am correct, all I have done is to recommend proper use of the talk page (and I have obstructed some of your comments). Try me out—instead of trying to teach me Wikipedia's policies, ask for advice if a procedural problem arises. I have no agenda other than trying to assist the encyclopedia.
I just looked at your contributions to see the areas in which you edit. That led me to look at User:Radvo/sandbox ( permalink). I understand that you are just preparing some thoughts—that's fine. However, a better strategy at Wikipedia is to respond directly to issues—if I say X and Y, you might say that X is not correct because the wording of [something] contradicts it, and that Y indicates I have failed to read [something] because if I had I would know that so-and-so says Y is wrong. Direct and plain talk is how things progress.
There is one point from the sandbox that needs a response: you quoted me as saying "a trivial matter". Are you referring to my comment "It's a trivial issue, but FYI what I said was 100% accurate."? If so, I was saying that I wanted to raise a trivial issue, namely that my comment about edits by a sockpuppet was correct (and I continued with a brief explanation). I have never referred to anything connected with the article as "trivial". Again, the sooner the side issues are ignored (things like my "agenda", who said what, sockpuppets, and Wikipedia's policies), the sooner any content issues will be resolved. By the way, please never repeat the term "legally actionable" as that sets off alarm bells among onlookers—I can see what you are getting at (although why you don't just use plain language to say what you think should be changed eludes me), but many people might interpret such comments as conflicting with WP:NLT, and that is a hard rule which is strictly enforced (I will explain why, if you like, but please take my advice and don't say anything which could be misconstrued along legal lines). Johnuniq ( talk) 10:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to inform you but I have made a thread at ANI about your recent post to the Rind talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Rind_et_al._controversy_and_user:_Radvo_consistently_failing_to_comply_with_talk_page_guidelines OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You have been
indefinitely blocked by the
Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the
guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by
emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
test Radvo ( talk) 23:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Herostratus: You wrote at the Rind et al. Talk page:
“ | "Just a couple points: we're not entirely rule-bound, no. It's a wiki not a court of law. | ” |
Thanks for writing that. That's especially comforting to hear from you. Since we are often (but not always) on the opposite sides, we also both like to go back to the Wikipedia rules and policies when we can't achieve our ends on the wiki in more reptilian ways. See: you were able to find some common ground with me. That's a gift, and I appreciate the gift. And there is probably more if we had more time together. A deep respect for the law makes things function better, but it's very important to build respect for law and order by (1) developing rules and policies that are sensitively and intelligently thought through and based on a scientific acknowledgement to the human experience, and (2) rules are consistently, wisely and compassionately enforced to establish order and build respect, without unnecessary pain and punishment for those at the very bottom of the heap, if possible.
You continued:
“ | Also, I'd recommend going light on throwing around words such as fascism etc., and in particular I'd be careful when using legal-type language such as "violation of... copyright law" and so forth | ” |
I accept your recommendations, as you obviously know what works around here better than I do. I will drop the use of the word "Fascism" in whatever will follow from here. In point of fact, there is much to be feared about Fascism; hundreds of millions of people (including members of my extended family) have come to untimely ends because we have not developed ways to effectively deal with such powerful ideas. But this may not be the time and place to do much of that difficult work here. We do what we can to raise consciousness about the whiff of Fascism, and try to learn the limits of each situation and stay within its bounds. I usually don't have a lot of problem with working within the limits and boundaries, unless they are fuzzy in my mind. I usually find some space to wiggle around in within bounds. That doesn't mean that I don't test the actual limits just a little a bit in a new situation, until I get the hang of things.
As far as copyright law goes, I am genuinely confused by the complexity of, and widespread disregard for, that law as it applied to the Internet and the third world. I support the freedom of ideas and suspect the many violations of copyright law are ignored, especially where there is little monetary consideration, because many also believe that progress on the INTERNET requires free and speedy access to textual information. When push comes to shove, I am more concerned with resisting censorship than preventing the spread of ideas by insisting on my copyright. My loose talk about violating my right to my own writing was part of kitchen sink blustering. It works like this: throw out all the accusations that I know about, and watch later which ones stick, and ignore the ones that don't stick. If the charge of copyright violation doesn't stick, I won't use it because the use of accusations that don't stick actually weakens my case. In that way, your recommendation is helpful to me. I have removed that "draft letter" from my talk page as too provocative for these genteel circumstances, and it violates a number of Wikipedia policies that I actually like and respect. I never saw that Wikipedia is not a battleground text before. Obviously, the draft letter is still in my user page history, but it's removal by me conveys the idea that I want to withdraw the provocation to make peace. There is an art to this, and I have yet to learn what the limits here are. I like and am willing to work with this: "Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints." What are those "broad principles?" Maybe I will have the opportunity to work with you on finding them.
I was feeling lonely when User:Truthinwriting and User:Juice Leskinen did not return, as it is hard to edit here with no allies at all. It was, in part, the loneliness with no competent editors who have studied the scholarly literature that motivated me to write that draft letter. There is a strong British manners flavor to how Wikipedia is run that is foreign to someone like me who grew up in a large urban rust-belt city with many "minorities" who are dirt poor. People around here fight like cats and dogs to hang onto the little they have; genteel British manners are not a survival skill here. This is an encyclopedia, not a political revolution. I will not use the words "Fascism" and "violation of copyright law" in what follows next around here. Thanks again for your comment.
I have been blocked by a arbitration committee member, User:Casliber, who is a psychiatrist in Australia, and who edits a lot of articles about Australian fauna. Now I have done it: I'm being shipped off as an exhibit of strange fauna to a psychiatrist in Australia! :-) I am able to read everything on Wikipedia and can edit only here on my own talk page. The community discussion noticeboard was closed before I even knew about it; they were surely afraid of some wall of words from me and chose not to expose themselves and the public to any more of that, thank you! I sent Dr. User:Casliber a very short e-mail yesterday, but obviously have not had any response yet. I have been through things like this before. I am considered a high risk, high gain kind of person, and "groups" that have taken a chance on "letting me in" have all been very pleased with the final result of my work. My attitudes (but not necessarily my skills, for lack of practice) are better suited to the higher levels of the establishment than for street fights in the barrio. So far. And I understand, you can't win them all...
I assume you are quite knowledgeable about these arbitration matters, and how they do not always go the way we expect them to. Any thoughts about how I might best handle this? Are you (and user:Johnuniq) willing to put in a good word with User:Casliber on my behalf, so I can finish the job at Rind et al. Controversy I set out to do? I don't know what to expect and have no friends or allies here. The two allies I had are both now blocked.
Specifically, Dr. Rind implied that he would appreciate it I could find a way to do something to soften the part of Rind et al. Controversy that unnecessarily repeats detail of the Dr. Laura libel, she put out on the radio to millions of listeners 14 years ago. And also I am looking to find some verifiable source, as you suggested to me before, that contradicts the secondary source now used (the Dutch e-mail newsletter quoted by Salter?), to show that Dr. Rind did not in fact attend the December 1998 Rotterdam conference. Ironically, he says that he did not accept that Rotterdam speaker invitation for exactly the same reasons that Salter and Dallam want to associate him with "a pedophile conference" -- which it was not anyway. The Dec. 1998 Rotterdam conference was sponsored by a religion-based social work foundation that reached out to social outcasts (and to the social workers and other professionals who provided professional services for them). The motivation for the conference was based on Rev. Hnas Visser's deep liberation-type Christianity that is hard for those who are not deeply religious to understand. Dr. Rind told me his current neighbors have read Wikipedia's Rind et al. Controversy, and the part they say is most embarrassing is the part that says he accepted the invitation to the December 1998 Rotterdam "pedophile" conference. Otherwise they refer to him as some kind of "controversial" writer! His neighbors seem to subscribe to the genteel British-like manners that Wikipedia endorses. Dr. Rind kept his distance from that 1998 Rotterdam conference. Wikipedia unfairly still gets him shamed for having attended it anyway because some biased secondary source claims he was there! I got myself foolishly banned before I could correct that mistake for him. Any help you (and User:Johnuniq?) might offer in this regard will be much appreciated and might be quite appreciated by Dr. Rind, and will not be forgotten by me. Not knowing that I would be blocked, I wrote a nice, conciliatory message for User:Johnuniq on his talk page, but lost it all when I tried to save it and could not recover it. Apparently I was blocked during the very time I was writing that message and didn't know about the block until I tried to save the message to User:Johnuniq's TALK page. It was really quite good, one of my better letters. Too bad it was lost. Maybe it is best not to approach the persons who are more directly involved in the current dispute until it completely blows over.
BTW User:Johnuniq's statement at the Arbitration Message Board was honest and there were no lies or embellishments that I remember. I appreciate having to deal with Johnuniq's truth and not have to deny a bunch of lies. Dealing with his truthful statement before the Arbitration Committee makes my experience before the Committee less contaminated than if I had to deal with filthy lies.
If we have no further contact, I wish you all well here at Wikipedia. -- Radvo ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)