MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 30, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
2,935 bytes added
, 20:39, 18 September 2008
Line 97: |
Line 97: |
| === Request for mediation === | | === Request for mediation === |
| | | |
| + | The issue I have with FT2 is that '''his/her editing always comes from one biased angle. Absolutely every edit he/she's made on my work serves to minimize and normalize aberrant behaviour that could threaten health'''. Yes, shock, but even in this non-judgemental world, some behaviors are still aberrant from a professional medical POV. I refer you to the various talk pages again. Please note that the quoted "negative" above is not my word. But '''I do have an issue with a disorder (for that is what the psychiatric profession all over the world classifies it as -- a "disorder") being presented as a charming alternate lifestyle''', and with an article in which '''the health/disease section is almost non-existent''', inane and frankly wrong, as it was. '''I tried to beef the health aspects up and FT2 has opposed me tooth and nail''', if you'll excuse the pun. Read the various pages, & the discussions. FT2 has raised trivial objection after trivial objection, edited my work without any attempt at consultation, and he/she clearly has a disturbing sense of ownership of the topic on WP. |
| + | |
| + | I wish to quote someone else's views on the Zoophilia page, and note that the problems highlighted in this quote are what got me started on the zoophilia page in the first place, attempting to insert balance, and even though I now have a separate page for the health issue, the party responsible for the tone of the original page is intent on pursuing me and keeping the tone in lockstep with the master article. Here's the apposite quote: "In my opinion it needs severe editing to the point that it would practically unrecognizeable from its current incarnation. It should also be very considerably shorter than it is, since the bulk of it consists of unnecessary romanticizing of zoophilia. .... '''this current article is still a terrible embarrassment to wikipedia'''. In fact I actually found out about it because someone linked it as an example of '''how wikipedia can get really biased due to POV manipulation by obsessive biased authors with an agenda to wage. In this case, internet bestialists using their group-jargon to butter up the article with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse over a prolonged campaign attempting to 'normalize' an incredibly biased article'''. To me this would be like creationists manipulating the "science" wiki page to include frequent counter-arguments against the scientific method. Or as previously stated, like pedophiles manipulating the wiki pedophilia page to make child molestation seem more normalized. This is wrong, and I hope someone with a strong sense of neutrality puts their foot down to stop it. Additionally, I would like to add that the current wikipedia entry for "homosexuality" is only slightly shorter than this one is - and that one is currently flagged for being too long. Something is terribly, disagreeably wrong here, and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.". |
| [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Zoophilia] | | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Zoophilia] |
| | | |