Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
You have been blocked for repeatedly calling people , including on . You can request an unblock but I doubt anyone will let you edit again until you learn to ]. -- ] (]) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for repeatedly calling people , including on . You can request an unblock but I doubt anyone will let you edit again until you learn to ]. -- ] (]) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
: These people really are and you are so pathetic. I'll get permanently blocked for having an opinion about Misplaced Pages now.
: These people really are and you are so pathetic. I'll get permanently blocked for having an opinion about Misplaced Pages from now on.
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Regarding your comments on Talk:Ephebophilia: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — neuro23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you deserve more than this. I want you to strike out your comment here. Do NOT call anyone a "pedo POV-pusher" again or you will be blocked indefinitely. And your "LOL!" edit summary just makes it more clear. That kind of behavior is not appropriate at all. If you want, there is a discussion about your conduct at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I did consider removing that comment for a while just to conclude it had already been removed. Concerning the comment itself: I'd absolutely agree it is to "disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point" but I can't agree it is a personal attack. I was making fun of Flyer22s style of contribution on that talk pages but the comment was not addressing Flyer22 personally. Furthermore, the Ephebophilia article itself is saying most people call it paedophilia and then you want to see me blocked for calling those who insist the article should say "it's perfectly normal, we all do it" pedo POV-pushers.
To give you a simple example:
In a comment Flyer22 suggest Mark Foley should have been called an ephebophile (not a paedophile)-- failing to explain why his "normal behaviour" resulted in a scandal. Flyer22 insist I can't distinguish between someone 7 and 17 just to proceed to discuss why kids "who already has breasts and menstrual cycles" are legitimate objects.
I certainly don't want to be associated with anything vaguely related to all this. If you have to block me for calling these people pedo POV-pusher -- please go ahead.
It's quite apparent that you cannot distingush, since you seem to view 17-year-olds as looking extremely different age-wise than 18-year-olds and still seem to view that a sexual attraction to a 17-year-old equates to pedophilia. I do not want to be associated with someone so uneducated on the matter of pedophilia. And if you do not want to be related to this article, then you will stop pretending that you know about these subjects and editing this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
One more thing -- as editor Legitimus said, it's quite clear that you do not read. Because no where on the article's talk page did we say that "it's perfectly normal, we all do it" (unless speaking of men's sexual attraction to 18 and 19-year-olds) or that kids "who already has breasts and menstrual cycles" are legitimate objects. I even argued against the "breasts and menstrual cycles" topic with another editor there! I always argue against an adult being with a child sexually, or an adult being with a teenager sexually under the age of consent. I am against any adult being with someone 15 and under, unless that adult is 18 and the minor that 18-year-old is with is 15, 16 or 17. But ages 16 and 17 are the ages of consent in several states in America. That's why I say anyone under 16. That, and the fact that I remember that 16 and 17 are hardly any physically or mentally different than 18.
When it comes to normal, we stated that plenty of normal men find 16, 17 and 18-year-olds sexually attractive, which is a fact. 16 and 17-year-olds hardly looking any physically different than 18-year-olds is the main reason that so many 16 and 17-year-olds can lie about their age and say that they are 18. It's the main reason why so many men, including celebrities, admitted to being sexually attracted to a then 17-year-old Britney Spears. It's the main reason that a then 26/27-year-old Brad Pitt dated a then 16/17 year-old Juliette Lewis.
Just because some people think that all sexual attraction to anyone under 18 is pedophilia does not make it pedophilia. Thus, yes, you are wrong to want the Ephebophilia article to be like the Pedophilia article, in wanting it to be relayed that ephebophilia is pedophilia. The point is that they are not the same thing, and we should make that clear in the Ephebophilia article, which is what we have done. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on Talk:Ephebophilia: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — neuro 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
