3,209
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday November 24, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipaedophilia (view source)
Revision as of 18:40, 4 October 2008
, 18:40, 4 October 2008no edit summary
On adding a section to the List of Historical Pederastic Couples, Nandesuka looks at what the sources say, which all say that Montgomery had strong, non-sexual relationships with boys [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242019112&oldid=242016082]. Haiduc replies with "what does sex have to do with it?"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242104971&oldid=242021030], which implies that any man who has a close, non-sexual relationship with an under-aged boy is probably really a pederast. Another editors says that if that's all there is to it, then the list is probably meaningless[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242118711&oldid=242114606]. Haiduc replies by saying that it is irrelevant what editors think pederasty is, which implies that his position is the objective one[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242134631&oldid=242119238]. Squeakbox turns the mirror back towards Haiduc...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242136118&oldid=242134631]. Haiduc says that he wasn't including himself in his statement and that his position is the "scientific" one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242158133&oldid=242150170]. Another editor brings up "child-grooming"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242170536&oldid=242164360]....and this comment is removed by an admin[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242185862&oldid=242170536]. The same sort of process is currently happening at "Theban Pederasty". I don't see how this can be allowed to continue, one way or the other....
On adding a section to the List of Historical Pederastic Couples, Nandesuka looks at what the sources say, which all say that Montgomery had strong, non-sexual relationships with boys [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242019112&oldid=242016082]. Haiduc replies with "what does sex have to do with it?"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242104971&oldid=242021030], which implies that any man who has a close, non-sexual relationship with an under-aged boy is probably really a pederast. Another editors says that if that's all there is to it, then the list is probably meaningless[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242118711&oldid=242114606]. Haiduc replies by saying that it is irrelevant what editors think pederasty is, which implies that his position is the objective one[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242134631&oldid=242119238]. Squeakbox turns the mirror back towards Haiduc...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242136118&oldid=242134631]. Haiduc says that he wasn't including himself in his statement and that his position is the "scientific" one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242158133&oldid=242150170]. Another editor brings up "child-grooming"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242170536&oldid=242164360]....and this comment is removed by an admin[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=242185862&oldid=242170536]. The same sort of process is currently happening at "Theban Pederasty". I don't see how this can be allowed to continue, one way or the other....
== VigilancePrime ==
The damning part of the Wikisposure article is where a connection is drawn between [http://www.wikisposure.com/Daniel_Lievre]http://www.wikisposure.com/Daniel_Lievre Daniel Lievre] who clearly is a very nasty piece of work, and editors on-wiki. This email e.g.
------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 1:27 AM
From: lievre@hushmail.com
Subject: Fwd: My perma-ban on Wikipedia
Fwd to 9 Wikipedia contacts.
-- Forwarded message from Tlato SMD <tlatosmd@googlemail.com> --
After coming back from a few days of wiki-break to cool off and forgive some people, I find that my modest step back has been thanked by perma-banning me. With you as my only accessible Wikipedia contact right now, it would be great if VigilancePrime, Homologeo, and Bikasuishin could be notified that I've left another comment on my talkpage now that I've come back.
It would also be great if users SSBohio, HolokittyNX, Allstarecho, PeaceNT, and maybe others could be notified of my current unwarranted, humiliating situation.
TlatoSMD
- Daniel Lièvre (lievre@hushmail.com)
Webmaster, Newgon.com.
-----------------------
Clearly directing the named editors to fight against the blocking of the Barry Jameson account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=206007697#Barry_Jameson_block_review]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barry_Jameson Jameson contributions]
And here for the record is the correct link to the Jameson block on ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=191533874#Block_review_User:Barry_Jameson]
== Other pages ==
== Other pages ==
* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality]]
* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality]]
