User talk:RJR3333/ARchive 3
Speedy deletion nomination of User RJR3333:Archive 1
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →TSU tp* 09:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you make a mistake like that, please clean up after yourself with a {{db-author}} tag. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to create a archive, create it here like this: User:RJR3333/Archive1 Cheers! →TSU tp* 09:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- TSR, do you see a blue link at the top of this page? RJR already knew the proper format. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- It had been a while since I made an archive I forgot the proper format. It was an honest mistake, not intentional, you're breaking WP: Good Faith. --RJR3333 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wtf are you talking about "breaking good faith"? Did I in any way suggest that what you did was anything other than an honest mistake? I repeat, you are expected to check your work and if you make an honest mistake, clean up after yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
"Late adolescent" and your other editing
editRJR3333, I hope you do not start going around changing articles that state "late adolescent" to "old adolescent" or "older adolescent." If I see it, I will revert it. The wording "late adolescent" is more specific than "older adolescent," seeing as "older" could simply mean a 14-year-old who is older than a 12-year-old, unless an age range is specified. And "late" is the wording used in scholarly texts. "Older" is only used when referring to an adolescent who is older than another adolescent. It's "early," "mid," and "late." For example, the Ephebophilia article, states "mid-to-late adolescents," not "mid-to-old" or "mid-to-older adolescents," and that wording is backed by the Blanchard et al. source.
As for mentioning in the lead of the Pedophilia article that "most people define the minimum age [at which one can be a pedophile] as 18," the popular use of the word "pedophilia" is already noted in the third paragraph of the lead, which makes clear that a lot of people extend the definition to the sexual interest in and abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors. But what source is there that specifically states "most people think of pedophiles as being 18 or older"?
Regarding this edit, I will wait and see if Legitimus objects to it. We don't need anyone walking away from the lead and somehow thinking that only adolescents 16 or older can be pedophiles. This lead has been extensively worked out on the talk page, and has WP:Consensus (WP:Consensus is a policy). That means that you are changing the consensus version. When there is an objection to you changing a consensus version part of an article, it is your job to take the matter to the talk page in an effort to achieve new consensus. The consensus version is the default version until you can convince others to change the consensus version. If you cannot, then you are out of luck.
And, finally, you really need to stop edit warring all the time. Do read over WP:BRD. One day, your edit warring will get you blocked. You don't have to violate WP:3RR to get blocked. And continuously stating that you won't be editing the Pedophilia article anymore, only to keep showing back up there, is very tiresome. The same goes for the age of consent articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fine Flyer22, obviously you want me to leave this section alone and you won't stop until you have an excuse to block me. And if I edit another topic area the same thing will happen in that topic area and it did because I've been editing wikipedia on different accounts since I was sixteen but on different topics like Freemasonry so I'll have to just fuck off from now on and leave wikipedia alone. I should have done that all along. I would rather be castrated and have my teeth ripped out of my mouth than deal with people like you and Malke anymore. This time its real. GOODBYE. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- You always overreact. I did not state that I would block you. I advised you to be more open to taking things to the talk page, especially if you are reverted twice. I also cited WP:Consensus, and noted that your constant edit warring is not wise because it could easily lead to you getting blocked. You don't just do this with me, I've noticed for some time. You do it everywhere -- you just keep reverting and stating your reason over and over again until, maybe, someone lets up. This recently happened at the Age of consent article, after you were reverted twice. What would have happened if you were reverted a third time? Would you have taken the matter to the talk page before reverting again? If not, that is what you should be open to. Because that third revert, and certainly more than that, can get you in trouble. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- And I hope you only mean IP accounts when you say "different accounts." Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- You just said up there that you would block me if I edited it a third time up there, you should try proofreading what you write...anyway I'm over the wikipedia garbage...I had no business being here in the first place. When I was sixteen my mother told me I had no business talking about Freemasonry because it is a stupid/creepy/satanic topic and I never wanted to say this but I'm doing the same thing now just on different topics. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't need to proofread anything. You need to read more carefully. I did not state that I would block you if you edited a third time. I stated, "And, finally, you really need to stop edit warring all the time. Do read over WP:BRD. One day, your edit warring will get you blocked. You don't have to violate WP:3RR to get blocked." So, RJR3333, that is clearly different than what you claim I stated. Can you not see that? Sometimes, I question your ability to digest what is being stated to you, similar to your interaction with RHaworth above. And even if I had stated that I would block you for reverting a third time, although there was currently nothing for you to revert since I didn't revert you in my most recent edits, with the exception of removing "older" because it was no longer needed, that is different than stating I would block you for editing again. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- You always overreact. I did not state that I would block you. I advised you to be more open to taking things to the talk page, especially if you are reverted twice. I also cited WP:Consensus, and noted that your constant edit warring is not wise because it could easily lead to you getting blocked. You don't just do this with me, I've noticed for some time. You do it everywhere -- you just keep reverting and stating your reason over and over again until, maybe, someone lets up. This recently happened at the Age of consent article, after you were reverted twice. What would have happened if you were reverted a third time? Would you have taken the matter to the talk page before reverting again? If not, that is what you should be open to. Because that third revert, and certainly more than that, can get you in trouble. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)