User talk:PetraSchelm

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd Participiation

If you're going to participate in Articles for Deletion discussions, please make sure to include a reason with your vote. Just giving a vote doesn't have any weight, since we use consensus instead of vote-counting (read WP:CONSENSUS). Just thought I'd let you know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV

Please review WP:NPOV, our policy on neutral point of view. Neutral point of view applies as equally to pedophilia related articles as it does any other article. Just because pedophilia is vile and disgusting, does not mean that you get to skew articles against it, or delete references to it via AFD. Equating pedophilia to child abuse is not only blatantly POV but is factually incorrect, and is something you need to be very careful to avoid doing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should actually read the lists which were named "Pedophila and Child Sexual Abuse in film/theatre/song/books, and have all been renamed by a small pedophile faction "sexual attraction to children in film/theatre/song/books" before you jump to conclusions. Meaning, the lists all clearly describe child sexual abuse. Your argument is a specious one, based I suspect on not reading the lists. What is at issue is not pedophilia=child abuse, it's whether a list of instances of child sexual abuse can be called a list of instances of sexual attraction to children. Certainly a a song about a child who is raped is not about "sexual attraction to children" from the perspective of a child who has been raped, or from the perspective of mainstream society. It is only about "sexual attraction" from the fringe point of view of the one who is sexually attracted, namely a pedophile. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the lists. The lists are fine, as evidenced by the overwhelming support for keeping them. You, however, after only a couple of days of editing, have seemed to find our deletion debates and have nominated several pedophilia related articles for deletion. I'm just warning you now to very carefully review WP:NPOV, as well as WP:CIVIL in your assertions that pedophiles are a fringe point of view. For someone so new to wikipedia, you seem to know about some of our more esoteric policies. Frankly, I'm suspicious that you are a sockpuppet of a banned editor, but regardless of that, you need to maintain a neutral point of view. That's something that's non negotiable in Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• You haven't at all addressed the recent name change of the lists, and how the new name reflects only an extreme fringe POV. And yes, pedophiles are an extreme fringe POV, so per NPOV, they cannot rename child sexual abuse "sexual attraction to children" to suit their POV. The mainstream POV is that child sexual abuse is child sexual abuse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see this is controversial, based on Swat and others comments so I suggest you make a request at WP:Requested moves and that we try to find a consensus on the talk page about moving the name of the articles, I certainly agree myself though that the names should contain the word child sexual abuse if that is what the material contains. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to request a move, but I will second it if you nominate. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I recommend you also read WP:NPA? Your accusation of paedophilia ("renamed by a small pedophile faction") is a serious violation of it. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the people who were most vocal in getting the articles renamed "sexual attraction to children" from "sexual abuse and pedophilia" were self-identified pro-pedophile. One of them states on his userpage that his "agenda" is pederasty articles, and has claimed that 13 year old boys can consent to sex. Another, Tony Sandel, clearly identifies himself as pro-pedophile on his userpage. I don't get the impression that that they think pedophile is an insult; on the contrary that is how they identify themselves. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Until just over a year ago pedophiles got away with self-identifying on wikipedia, then after a thread at Jimbo's talk they all got purged. Since then the wikipedia consensus has been that one cannot identify as a pedophile or accuse someone else of being one without sound evidence (as for instance a user banned for attempting to solicit a minor on wikipedia). You can say "you are promoting a pro pedophilia viewpoint" to another user but if you call them a pedophile an admin may block you. And you are not going to be any help if you are indefinitely blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know that/that there were such fine distinctions in how to refer. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I notification

I've started a section on the Incidents board pertaining to your personal attacks: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent.2C_serious_personal_attacks_by_User:PetraSchelm --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above, I would comment that - as mentioned above - that self identifying as a paedophile is sufficient to be banned from editing Wikipedia, and therefore that claiming someone is or may have sympathy toward paedophiles, or child sexual abuse, is a very serious accusation. While expression of opinion is generally encouraged within Wikipedia this is one area where it is not, and as such I am formally warning you that making such accusations on the basis of your interpretation of anothers contributions, discussions or arguments, will likely result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please contain your comments only toward content, and never toward editors in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I find that very semantic and weird, because in the case of Haiduc, he clearly states on his user page that his "agenda" is pederasty articles. According to the terminology on the Wikipedia Pedophile Article Watch Project, this is the definition of pederast: "Pederast: a male homosexual Ephebophile. It is idiomatically common, but not scholarly, to call such persons paedophiles." So his "agenda" is pederasty, and pederasts are commonly known as pedophiles. How is he not pro-pedophila, and how is he not advertising that on his user page? Also, he has stated on Wikipedia that he thinks boys aged thirteen and over can consent to sex/that sex between adults and boys over 13 are not "abuse." If that is not self-identifying as pro-pedophile, then what is? -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You were warned. Blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. As LessHeard vanU mentioned, we take this very seriously. If you persist after your block expires, the next one will be significantly longer. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

PetraSchelm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

blocked by admin who is in a dispute with me on several AfDs and Jimbo's talkpage

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=blocked by admin who is in a dispute with me on several AfDs and Jimbo's talkpage |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=blocked by admin who is in a dispute with me on several AfDs and Jimbo's talkpage |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=blocked by admin who is in a dispute with me on several AfDs and Jimbo's talkpage |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}