Age of consent/Pedophilia
Burke, you moved a large section from one article to another article, then said it didn't belong in the second article either. Are you going to put it somewhere else?
Burke, how could the founder of a "Worker's party" be regarded as right-wing? And what offices did this "politician" hold? VargasMilan 02:34, 12 March 2015 (EDT)
- I took out the reference to the right-wing, and replaced "politician" with "political activist". Is that better?Burke39 02:37, 12 March 2015 (EDT)
You're getting another chance, but you're not allowed to edit articles or content on human sexuality. Those are Conservapedia's administration's orders. VargasMilan 21:15, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- Ok, I understand. Is that a permanent restriction or a temporary one? I mean if I agree to change what the problems were can I edit them?Burke39 21:17, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
It's permanent as for now. If you show good behavior as a regular contributor, you may have success in appealing that decision. VargasMilan 21:34, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- Its just that I'm not sure that my contributions in that topic were any worse than in other areas. Why is that specific area being singled out? Burke39 21:44, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- I think it's because you sort of have to be an expert to discuss these matters conservatively, and you have been shown in general to have made a lot of mistakes in presenting facts enyclopedically. VargasMilan 21:54, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- By "discuss these matters conservatively" do you mean from a conservative political viewpoint, or do you mean with caution in order to avoid making mistakes? Burke39 21:56, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- Conservative in style and substance. They can both involve each other. VargasMilan 22:02, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- I remember reading on your talk page somebody stating that "he maxed out his creepy/bizarre/liberal sex topic quota". So I thought maybe it was because of some kind of bias that they felt my editing contained. I'm actually a conservative politically, and although I don't think conversion therapy works in most cases, I don't agree with the homosexual "rights" movement and I'm against pedophilia. The only reason I took out the Kinsey comment about the adult-child thing was that it was sourced to a dead link, I didn't necessarily disagree with it. I'm against the ideas of people like Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey who wanted to destroy morality. Also, in the ephebophilia article when I put the mental health practitioners did not consider it a mental problem, I wasn't saying that acting on attractions like that would be a good idea, I was just saying that the sources don't consider it a perversion the way pedophilia is considered a perversion because people in adolescence have adult bodies, that is what the reliable sources say for the most part in psychiatry. I understand I have to abide by the restriction even though I do not agree with it though.Burke39 22:06, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- Wait, another thing. Does the topic ban on sexuality only applies to articles specifically about sexuality, or does it also apply to sex when it comes up in other articles. For example, Nelson Rockefeller died during or shortly after sexual intercourse with a woman who worked for him, and he lost his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1964 because he divorced his wife to marry another woman he had been committing adultery with, and he also had sex with a lot of other women he was not married to, so in an article about him the topic of sex would come up. And in a lot of articles about other famous people like Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas, and Roman Polanski, accusations (whether true or false) of sexual misconduct come up. Am I banned from editing parts of articles about people that relate to their sexual lives or to sexual accusations against them, or just from articles specifically about sexuality?Burke39 23:36, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- If I were you, I'd give the whole topic a rest. VargasMilan 00:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
- I'm just asking if the ban extends to those areas. That's my final question on it. Burke39 00:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
- It would make it look like you were trying to dodge the ban, so yes. VargasMilan 01:18, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Is there anything wrong with my recent edits to other topics
I put some edits in the Mormonism article because it seemed like the article was saying Mormonism is Christian, and its not. I'm not a particularly religious person so I don't have a dog in that fight, but Mormonism is completely different from Christianity. Burke39 22:06, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
- I checked those edits and found nothing offensive. VargasMilan 22:21, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
The cat picture in the Russia article was added by user:Conservative (generally known as "Cons") at 10:03, 2 Nov. 2011.
I do not know what to make of the statement that your "topic ban" on sex articles was issued by that person. In fact, I can see no evidence that anyone ever issued any kind of "topic ban" against you. Other than a reference to it having been done, by the administration, in a note by VargasMilan at 21:15, 11 May 2015. Cons is an administrator, and he may have issued that topic ban, but I can find no evidence of it. Nor do I know what the reference to the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" was about. The only references to that phrase that I can find are on your talk page, by you, at 22:06, 11 May 2015, and on VM's talk page, by you, at 00:53, 12 May 2015.
But I would recommend that, when you come back, you stay away from articles about anything related to sex. This is a subject area in which admins and sysops are particularly sensitive, rightly or wrongly, to the possibility of vandalism or parody. Even though you disagree completely, and think you have been treated unfairly, stay away.
About the cat picture: I fully agree that the cat picture isn't right for a section on Russian geography. Cons puts in lots of fanciful pictures, including cats, but they are almost always in his fanciful articles, where people expect that. It doesn't belong in the Russian geography section. I think a much better picture would be a vast plain with the Ural Mountains rising in the background. As in the Doctor Zhivago movie. I'd scrounge up a suitable picture myself, but I don't have upload rights. I see that Cons recently changed it to a picture of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, which is fine, but not in the geography section. And the same picture is in the next section. By the way, I think edits relating to Russia and the USSR are a fine topic for you, and you seem to be knowledgeable about it.
As far as "inserting false information" or "trolling", I've seen no evidence of it, though I haven't looked through your extensive edits (244) over the last few months. Surviving at Conservapedia often involves staying away from people, and staying away from topics that set off their "troll detectors", whether you agree with them or not.
If you have anything you wish to say, or questions you wish to ask, contact me, as per the top of my user page. I'll see what I can do.
SamHB 19:52, 13 May 2015 (EDT)
- Postscript --- @Cons: What happened to your Murmansk picture? Copyright problem? Please find another one. Preferably the Urals, or the Kamchatka volcano or whatever it is. Please upload something; I'm counting on you.
- Also, it would be nice if you could rescind Burke39's block. You have the authority to do it.
- SamHB 22:38, 13 May 2015 (EDT)
Please come back
You should feel free to edit articles on any topic, such as the ones you suggested (anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry), but I'd recommend staying away from sexuality topics. I don't really understand Conservapedia's stance on sexuality, and I never edit on such topics. Don't fret over just why people wanted you to stay away; I never figured out what their gripe was either. Just stay away.
Please don't get too stressed out over just what Cons and VM think of you. Proceed normally. Don't worry about "He should be an editor in good standing at Conservapedia before even asking for the privilege." Just stay away from sexuality, the way I stay away from creationism.
Now there is no guarantee that you won't be arbitrarily blocked for reasons that seem frivolous. (In fact there's no guarantee of anything in this life, is there?) These things happen. I was blocked by Ed Poor 7 years ago, with no explanation (he didn't put any explanation on my user page.) Several attempts, over the next few years, to get him to explain what this "probation" meant, were unsuccessful. Eventually I just forgot about it, and so did he. We collaborated amicably after that.
- I don't know. I hesitate to because I'm afraid of what I would do if someone irritated me hear. I'm already convicted of crimes I committed against my teachers after they kicked me out of school and their attorney explained in a letter their reasons. I was very insulted by the letter and committed crimes as a result. I'm worried about the possibility of people insulting me here. Paul Bustion 12:51, 26 August 2015 (EDT)