User talk:FDR

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FDR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is my original account. I will not troll, make jokes, etc, anymore. I will only make constructive edits.

Decline reason:

You were using sockpuppet accounts as recently as 4 days ago...I odn't quite see you understanding the issues involved here. only (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FDR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, I think we could take a standard offer approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll accept the standard offer approach and work on the Irish and Scots wikipedias for 6 months before coming back.--FDR (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor was posting on my talk on another account against my wishes. I do not want that editor to do this here. And I'm not socking here or criticizing her here, I'm merely making a request, so there's no reason for her to post here. --FDR (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing administrator: Please see relevant conversation at User talk:PaulBustion88. Additionally, I have some concerns regarding possible pedophilia advocacy [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and note that they have edited the topic on the Simply Wikitionary. Additionally, please note that they had requested an unblock via User:RJR3333 which was declined and their talk page access was revoked with instructions to contact WP:BASC. Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ridiculous that Tiptoety is insinuating that I'm a pedophile advocate for this edit, [7]. The legal age for sex in quite a few civilized countries is 14 or 15, Germany, Austria, and France included. There is no substantial difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old, and 16 is the legal age for sex in most American states, I believe. Bishonen labeled me a neo-Nazi for daring to point out Freud was Jewish. It seems if anyone voices any unpopular opinion here there shunned, sigh. I don't think I'm interested in pursing this after Tiptoety's and Flyer's insults. --FDR (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps it would be best for me to just leave this site alone for six months and then contact BSAC. So I'm just going to cancel the appeal. Once people see that I have edited for six months on the simple English wiktionary productively, then I can be unbanned from simple English wikipedia probably, and then after six months there I could probably be unbanned here. That's probably my best bet. So I'm cancelling the appeal. --FDR (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to use this page to appeal for 6 months, but in order to address the charge made by Tiptoety, that Malke2010 also made before, that my editing involved pedophilia advocacy, I do not feel it did, and I oppose pedophilia, but I have taken extra care now to make sure it contains nothing that Tiptoety could claim was pedophilia advocacy on simple English wiktionary, so this shows I'm more responsible with my editing now. [8], [9], [10], [11] . --FDR (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also made this edit, where I corrected a sample sentence that implied 12 year olds were adults and corrected definitions that implied there were other definitions of adulthood than the legal age of majority, [12]. So I'm not giving a false impression that say, 16 year olds are adults, which is something Malke2010, Flyer22, and Tiptoety criticized me for, anymore. --FDR (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was definitely not pedophilia advocacy, [13]. I was undoing trolling I had done before. It was wrong of me to troll in the past. I thought life was a big joke. I put false information in that article, and then I changed my mind and corrected it. It is true that technically the legal age for sexual activity is 16 in most states, there are some states where it is 18, but not many (although its also true that in most states laws such as contributing to the immorality of a minor are used as alternatives, but that's off topic to this point, what I said there was at least technically correct). That's a fact, whether it should be the case or not is a different matter, so stating that cannot be pedophilia advocacy. So that example Tiptoety used is also a bad one. Even if it should not be the case, it is the case. --FDR (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[14] This edit also cannot be considered pedophilia advocacy. The men who showed up on that show were not pedophiles for the most part. If anything they would have been diagnosed as hebephiles, but even then that would only be for the ones who showed up to meet with victims still in puberty, say ones 13 or younger, and it would also be more about them being fixated on victims that age, rather than an adult finding a 13 year old mildly attractive. That is not condoning their actions, but the perpetrators who showed up on that show do no meet the clinical definition of pedophilia. That is a point Chris Hansen, the host of that show, has made himself. But I have kept Tiptoety's complaint in mind and have altered my editing on simple English wiktionary related to this topic to make it more acceptable to him/her, and am willing to alter my editing on that topic and other topics within reasonable limits if it is criticized. --FDR (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this, [15], regardless of what Polanski did or did not do, his victim was to old for a pedophile to be interested in, a pedophile would not be interested in a 13 year old who was as mature in appearance as his "victim". And I also took the term age of consent out of the article, and I believe that is a term that is popular mainly among pedophiles, or at least I was told that on wikipedia when people objected to my using the term. So that edit also cannot be considered pedophile advocacy. With regards to my comment that calling his actions against her sexual abuse violated npov, perhaps I was mistaken, but there was dispute between him and her about what happened, he claimed she consented, while she claimed she said no, calling it "abuse" seemed to me to be taking her side, so potentially violating npov. I might have been wrong to take that position, but that was how it seemed to me at the time. --FDR (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on other topics, I was labeled a bigot by an editor for putting one word in the psychoanalysis article describing Sigmund Freud as Jewish, I may have debated it to much on the talk page, but I did not suggest in the article at all that Freud's Judaism influenced his psychoanalysis, although I did to an extent on the talk page. I also criticized a statement for violating npov that was suggesting psychoanalysis was discredited, even though I'm against psychoanalysis, that shows I can edit objectively, [16]. Even though I oppose Freemasonry, I reverted an edit in a biography that was favorable towards an author who attacked Freemasonry, [17]. So that also shows I can be objective and write from a neutral point of view on other topics also. --FDR (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[18] I'm also practicing editing on wikinews, and I'm going to try my best/hardest there to be competent, to not make jokes, and to not be disruptive in any way. --FDR (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want me commenting on your talk page or following you to another wiki, then stop commenting on me in different places, such as this edit summary. That was one of your biggest problems before -- failing to not comment on me. I never called you a pedophile advocate; I have commented on your editing being pro-pedophilia in ways (we know that pro-pedophilia can be broad); I did so because I have been clear that you cannot be trusted to edit pedophilia, child sexual abuse or age of consent topics due to your age of consent reform (lower the age of consent) POV and that you simply are not good at comprehending policies and guidelines, and various other things. You know very well that I know the differences between a pedophile, hebephile, ephebophile and child sexual abuser. I have never liked you commenting on me; this is because you always, always describe me or my comments inaccurately. For example, at your PaulBustion88 talk page, when I stated, "To other editors, see the edit history of this talk page for what email aspect I was referring to in my '03:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)' post about posting others' emails; PaulBustion88 removed that material.", you took offense, calling me a kike. I'm not even Jewish, and I'm certainly not religious. You acted like I was accusing you of wrongdoing by you having removed that email copy from your talk page; I was not. And that you could not see that speaks more to what I stated about the way you comprehend things. And, as we know, you took to harassing me via email...once again. You have not learned a thing. I link to Wikipedia:Competence is required when it comes to you because it accurately conveys how I feel about your editing; that is as close as I can get to describing your editing without stating things that would insult you significantly more. I would comment on your personality, for example (like the fact that you dared to recently call me a kike), but this is not the place for that. Unlike you, I don't need to resort to such mess. You act like I drove you to calling me a kike and more harassing emails. That you can't even take responsibility for your outbursts is more reason to criticize your ability to edit Wikipedia productively. If either of us should be at the end of our ropes, it's me. You are not the victim.[reply]

Every time you plead your case, you dig yourself further into a hole. Bsadowski1 did you a favor at the PaulBustion88 talk page by shutting you up, and here you are again, going on and on about possibly returning to Wikipedia and what a decent editor you can be after you have been explicitly told at the PaulBustion88 talk page that you will not be welcomed back here at Wikipedia; in other words, you repeatedly blew your chances to edit to here honestly. And yet you have the audacity to continue to comment on me, criticize me, and demand that I don't post to your talk page. I am tempted to report you at WP:ANI right now so that your talk page privileges for the FDR account are also restricted. If you move to any of your other WP:Sock accounts and use those to plead your case, I am likely to have the talk page privileges of those shut down as well. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I saw that Flyer22 posted to my talk page. I am not going to comment on her posting here other than to ask that she not post again. I am not socking anymore, users are allowed to edit their own talk pages ordinarily even if banned, and I do not intend to harass her or anyone else ever again. I view her posting to my talk page against my wishes as harassment. I have asked her to stop. There is no reason for her to be posting to my talk page. I am not accusing her of anything on my talk page. I'm just asking her to leave me alone. I'm not even going to read what she says because I know she is going to say something to hurt my feelings so that I will feel an urge to harass her and she will have more arguments to use against my ever being unblocked. I have not read what she said, and I will not read it under any circumstances. I am not accusing her of anything other than the fact that she is posting on my talk page despite my request to stop. I am respectfully asking her to leave me alone and stop posting on my talk page. Even if I were still socking, posting on my talk page does not make that any less likely, so it is harassment when I have asked her not to communicate with me that she keeps doing it. I do not intend to appeal my ban for six months and I don't intend to try to edit unless I'm unbanned/unblocked/whatever. But I want her to stop posting to my talk page. This is harassment. --FDR (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not read what she wrote, and am not going to. I do not care one bit about her. I wish she would just leave me alone. I have nothing more to say here, except that after hopefully having done a productive job of editing wikinews, simple English wiktionary, conservapedia and/or some of the foreign language wikipedias such as the Scots, Irish, and French ones (I'm trying to learn Irish and French on Rosetta Stone, I've had a little success so far) for 6 months, hopefully I will be able to appeal for a WP:OFFER. I am never going to read what Flyer22 wrote on my page. Maybe I was obsessed with her in the past. But I definitely am not now. I do not give a care about her and I do not want to harass her, I just want her to leave me alone. I have nothing to say to you, Flyer22, and if you'll excuse me from further replies, I'm going to be gone for 6 months. --FDR (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[19] Dan Polansky, who was no fan of mine, said a user should be able to defend himself against criticism and talk page access should almost always be allowed. Also, although I do have a bias on the legal age for sex topic in that I think the legal for that and the age of majority should be lowered to 15, I did not allow my bias to effect my editing as much on wiktionary as it did in the past. For example here, [20], I reverted my edit where I called people who had completed puberty adults, even though in my opinion most of them are, due to the fact that they are not legal adults, and the reason I did was because of Flyer's criticism of me for calling them adults. [21], here even though I did not agree with the popular definition, I expanded it to include both any sexual act against or attraction to a minor. [22], here also, in other words, even though I personally believe mental and biological adulthood begin at about age 15, I kept that bias out of my editing and restricted the term adult to describing people age 18 and older on wiktionary. Also, on simple wiktionary, I went even further in avoiding my bias and inserted the popular definition of pedophilia as the first one, even though that was not my inclination, because that was what they had wanted to do on English. So I agree that I had a problem with bias in the past. But I don't think its as bad as it was in the past. I'm not going to insult you. It was wrong of me to call you that. But I felt like you were harassing me. Also that word is often used as a meaningless insult, it does not imply that you actually are Jewish"Kike 2.(US, highly offensive) A contemptible person, especially one who is stingy."[23] (sort of like fuck usually does not literally mean sex). Also I think its kind of interesting for you to complain about my bias, because I thought (perhaps I was mistaken), that you agreed with my viewpoint, and I thought I detected that bias in your editing. [24] I think any objective person who looked at my edits on simple English wiktionary would say that they were better than my edits have been in the past. Its fair to say I should not be allowed to use any talk pages other than this one. But I think I should be allowed to use at least one talk page to respond to criticism and defend myself. Even Dan Polansky said that. --FDR (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Flyer22 thinks I have a problem with objectivity, but I dislike Freemasonry intensely. But in my editing about that topic, for the most part, I was neutral even though I oppose Freemasonry. And I've also improved in terms of my understanding of what is appropriate and what is not, for example in the pedophilia article, I remember that I put a quote from Sigmund Freud's Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, that was off topic because what he was talking about did not meet the definition of pedophilia the article was giving, because his views are not in the mainstream of science, and it also might have been inappropriate because he was a pedophile advocate, at least that's what my understanding is, so he was not npov. So for all those reasons, that quote was inappropriate to the article. That shows that I've matured in terms of my understanding of what's on topic and what's off topic. --FDR (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here's another manner in which my editing became more objective, I stopped focusing on off topic people like Hans Eysenck in my editing. Flyer22 criticized me for bringing him up in the pedophilia article here, on conservapedia, I took Hans Eysenck out of the article, [25], although it was my fault he was there in the first place, I realized my mistake. And I realize now that putting Sigmund Freud in the article here on wikipedia was inappropriate. So I have improved in terms of recognizing what's appropriate to articles and what is not. --FDR (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Flyer22 said my bias in favor of slightly lowering the legal age for sexual activity (I don't like to use the term age of consent because pedophiles use it and I'm still opposed to pedophilia) got in the way of my editing. But I believe in the past I tried to note the fact that in the USA that laws such as contributing to the immorality of a minor are used as alternatives in states where the legal age for sex is lower than 18. For example, in Germany a 14 year old or older really is a consenting adult legally for having sexual relations with an older person, and I don't believe that that state uses other laws as alternatives, but in the USA that's not true, in most states there are alternative laws such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor that arguably make the de facto legal age for sex 18, and I tried to note those in the article about the North American laws. If my bias completely effected how I edited I would not have noted those alternative laws. And like I said, there are other topics that I had viewpoints on where they did not effect my editing to much. I don't like Freud for example, because of his leftist political views and because he advocated literal pedophilia, but I didn't insert any hostile commentary into the article about him. And on conservapedia, even though I personally oppose homosexuality because I think its unnatural, I took out statements the editors made that equated it to pedophilia because I thought that was ridiculous [26], that's why conservapedia banned me. Also, I noted that CNN was less far to the left than conservapedia characterized it as, [27], so that shows my right-wing political views did not always bias my editing.Also, I don't like Alfred Kinsey's work because I believe it promoted literal pedophilia and perversion, but I took out an unsourced statement on conservapedia attacking Kinsey, [28]. So that shows I can be objective in my editing and keep my bias out of it. --FDR (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also why would my view on the legal age for sex effect my ability to objectively edit about pedophilia or child molesting? I'm not in favor of a person who is say, 12 or under being able to consent to sex, and I would consider that rape and abuse in all cases. So maybe it would effect my ability to edit the "age of consent" (a term I dislike since its a pedophile's term) but it wouldn't effect my ability to edit on pedophilia or child molesting. --FDR (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that my edit summaries mentioning Flyer22 and other editors be deleted, [29],[30].--FDR (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this article that I created about one of the founders of the Nazi Party, [31], I was criticized by conservapedia for calling Nazism a right-wing philosophy. Even though I'm right-wing politically, I'm objective enough to see Nazism resembles the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party, just as Bolshevism/Communism resembles the Democratic Party more than the Republican Party, but the people conservapedia think the right-wing can do no wrong, so they got angry at me for pointing out that Nazism was right-wing, that's another area where I did not let my bias get in the way of my editing.Also in this edit, I did not let my bias on the legal age for sexual activity get in the way of my pointing out that that was not the most popular position,[32]. I also corrected a mistaken statement that the age of majority in the Isle of Man was 16 years old on conservapedia, although the statement might have been my fault I don't remember if it was, I still corrected it,[33], I know that's a different topic than sex, but I also favor lowering that, but my bias did not get in the way of my editing there. --FDR (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on an unrelated topic, Bishonen criticized me for arguing in the article about Christian opposition to Freemasonry that Mormonism should not be included in that article because it is not Christian, I stand by what I said there. I know I should not war about things like that if I'm allowed back, but no Christian religion other than the Mormons considers them Christian. I'm an atheist at this point, I used to be Roman Catholic but I don't believe in Catholicism anymore, so I don't have a bias on that topic, but all of the Christians I know have stated Mormonism is not Christian, every Christian who talks about it has stated that, and I took a class about the topic in college and the teacher was a Mormon and he said it was not Christian. So although I have trolled a lot in the past, I was actually making a serious point then. Theologically Mormonism is a different religion from Christianity. And actually it is more different from Christianity than Judaism and Islam are, [34].--FDR (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was criticized for insisting on adding Sigmund Freud's Jewish background to the psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud articles here, I learned from that mistake and did not do it on Irish wikipedia. Well, I guess I did before, but I undid it after I was criticized for that here,[35]. Someone else readded it, and I argued for keeping it out of the article there,[36]. So that also shows that I learned from my mistakes here on other wikis. Flyer said I am the same on every wiki, I think the evidence suggests I improved, I might still do a bad job, but it was less bad.--FDR (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, part of what I'm talking about with my criticism of Flyer22 is, it would be one thing if she just tried to keep me off wikipedia, but she went on simple English wikipedia, a place where we never interacted before, and where I was not particularly disruptive other than for briefly using multiple accounts, and attacked my editing there, [37]. In my view, my editing there both on sexual and other topics was less bad and less biased than it was here, although it may still not have been good. I also felt like some of her criticism of my editing was hair splitting. " I restored the content because the editor added faulty language, such as calling a 16-year-old an adult even though 16-year-olds are not usually viewed as adults, and he split the edit histories."[38]. Obviously 16 years old are not of the age of majority in most countries (although I believe they are in Scotland), and I was not implying that, adult is sometimes also used to mean "sexually or mentally mature" or "post pubescent" because a 16 year old being attracted to a 12 year old, for example, would not be normal and most of them are more likely to be attracted to older people than to children, I think that's a point Flyer has made herself. I was not implying that they were adults with that edit, in edition, I posted on the talk page and asked other editors if that edit was inappropriate, and nobody replied to me, so its not like I forced the word "adult" into that article without giving anyone a chance to change it. [39] "Does anyone object to my phrasing "adult 16 years of age or older". The reason I phrased it that way is a pedophile is an adult attracted to children, and the reason that it is possible, although not likely, for a 16 or 17 year old to be diagnosed as a pedophile is that they are more like adults than children in their sexual development and mental capacity, and because the age of consent for sex is 16 in a lot of states. But they also are under the age of majority in most jurisdictions, so they're legally children in most states. Should I rephrase it? --FDR (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)" But despite the fact that I feel like its hair splitting, I'm willing to restrict the word adult to those 18 or older to avoid edit conflicts, even though I don't think there's a significant difference between a 15 year old and an 18 year old. And on all the other wikis, I've only used the word adult to mean "18 or older" now because of Flyer's criticism. So it shows that I'm willing to not insist on my bias or my own way. Also, some of my edits to the puberty article were bad, but the article was far to long, I trimmed it to make it more readable, because that website is designed for foreigners, mentally disabled people, and children, not for mentally competent English speaking fluent adults and adolescents.McdonaldRoss, who was not a fan of mine, said "You have done a great job, I think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)" on the puberty article. [40]I also removed an off topic part about tribal cultures from the puberty article,[41].I believe Auntof6, who was not a fan of mine on simple English wikipedia, said removing that section was an improvement. I also created and wrote some at least mediocre articles related to puberty on simple English wikipedia, for example,[42].[43]. --FDR (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also here, Flyer criticized my decision to redirect the article pedophile to pedophilia,[44]. It was bad the way I did it because it split the edit histories, so I should have had someone else do it, but actually the article should be about pedophilia the sexual perversion/mental defect, not about pedophiles the people, just like we have articles about discalculia the mental disability, not discalculics the mentally disabled, or schizophrenia the mental illness, not schizophrenics the mentally ill. Auntof6 said she agreed with me that the article should be redirected to pedophilia when I explained my reasons to her. [45] Also Flyer called my edits to this article problematic, but I disagree. She rephrased statutory rape to make it about sexual maturity, in most states, sexual maturity of the victim makes no difference to prosecuting the defendant. For example in France the legal age for sex is 15, that means it would be legal for a man of any age to have sex with a woman who says yes as long as she is 15 years or older, whether she is sexually developed is irrelevant, if she had never even begun puberty, which obviously would only be the case if she had a serious medical problem, it would still be legal as long as she said yes and she was mentally competent, and having sex with a person even a day younger than 15 would be considered rape even if she was post-pubescent, so saying that sexual maturity is a factor in those laws is fallacious. In Russia, I believe, sexual maturity is a factor, but that's the only state I can think of off the top of my head that factors that into the law. She also took out my reference to mentally incompetent adults there. Age is not the only factor involved in statutory rape laws, mental competence is also involved. For example my parents showed me an article in the New York Times recently about an elderly woman with Alzheimer's whose husband who was an Iowa state legislature was prosecuted for statutory rape for having sex with her even though she said yes, because she was deemed mentally incompetent, she was well over 21 years old, so she was not a minor. So my edits that she reverted there were not necessarily problematic.

Also, I created new articles on simple English wikipedia on other topics, for example dialetheism [46](by the way, I'm not stupid enough to believe in dialetheism,just so you don't use that as a reason to not let me back on, I know that idea is false because if it were true then there would be no difference between no and yes),[47],[48]--FDR (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, its true that Bishonen criticized my edit about Freud as being bigoted for insisting on the importance of Freud's Judaism, but I've also criticized the racial anti-Jewishness of Helena Blavatsky, Carl Jung, and the New Age movement when discussing it with people, and I do not agree with neo-Nazism or Holocaust denial, and I've condemned American Freemasonry for excluding blacks and German Freemasonry for excluding Jews, so I'm not a neo-Nazi. --FDR (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--FDR (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I created a lot of articles on English wiktionary and simple wiktionary that were not deleted, [49], [50], [51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57], [58],[59].--FDR (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I managed to get the edit summary about Flyer removed from wikinews, [60].--FDR (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to get it removed from the simple English wiktionary, [61].--FDR (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this [62] is a positive statement, not a normative one, i.e., I was simply noting the fact, or at least the belief I had, that the Koran and the Talmud condone pedophilia, because I have read that in sources. It could be that I was mistaken, but I was not arguing pedophilia was ok, I'm against pedophilia, I was arguing against conservapedia's statement that all religions condemn pedophilia. Mohammad, I believe, was married to a girl whose exact age is not clear, but we know she was younger than 10. I was not arguing that what Mohammad did was right, so that edit was not pedophile advocacy. I had seen quotes from the Talmud that claimed that it stated the marriage age was 3, I was disgusted by that, but I assumed it was true because I saw the quote in a large number of sources, but it could be I was mistaken. I just thought you might come across that quote and think it was advocacy,it was not, it was a normative statement, not a positive one. I learned those terms in economics class in college (which is the class I most regret ever taking), positive means "what is" "objective facts" normative means "what should be" "moral judgements" "opinion". --FDR (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I created some articles on conservapedia, such as thelarche,[63],[64], [65], and [66]. --FDR (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just like I mentioned how I figured out Flyer was right that Hans Eysenck and Sigmund Freud were inappropriate to the setting of an article about pedophilia, I also have figured out what's off topic in other topic areas also. For example, in the Christian opposition to Freemasonry article talk page, I argued that Helena Blavatsky was off topic to that article because she was a member of a different kind of Freemasonry from the kind the article was focusing on, she was not involved in mainstream Freemasonry, and since she had political views that were very similar to Nazism and she hated Jews, she probably would have been opposed to western Freemasonry, since it has apparently been Jewish influenced and most of the far right and anti-Jewish people have opposed it, [67]. I think I was right that she was off topic for that article. So I think I've improved in terms of distinguishing between on topic and off topic material. --FDR (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your emails

Hello there. I am writing to let you know that I have received your emails. I do not respond to emails from block users via email for security reasons. With regards to issues above, I suggest that you cease editing Wikipedia for the required 6 month period for the "standard offer." Best, Tiptoety ^talk 02:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also heed what I stated with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that doesn't make any sense, I already am banned from wikipedia. I'm not allowed to edit under any account, its not just this account. --FDR (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, I kindly suggest you don't post here any longer. There is really no need and you are just antagonizing FDR. Tiptoety ^talk 03:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tiptoety. Last question on my part, I do not want to irritate you, but do any of the edits I linked to above from other wikis look like improvements from my past editing to you, Tiptoety? --FDR (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FDR, I already tried to explain the difference between a WP:Block and a WP:Ban to you at the other talk page; I'm not going through that again.

Tiptoety, I disagree, per what I stated above and in this linked thread. Your decision to refer to the matter as me "antagonizing FDR" is simply fuel for him to be even more disruptive as far as I go (such as claims of WP:Harassment when he is an indefinitely blocked editor whose disruption I have repeatedly stopped; reporting on his disruption and defending myself against his mischaracterizations of me is not WP:Harassment or antagonizing him). He is antagonizing me, in my opinion. Consider the hell that I have endured when it comes to this editor. He still gets to repeatedly ramble on about me above, at other wikis, and act as though he is a part of the Wikipedia community when he is not. But I will do as you suggest in this case and let his disruption at this talk page continue. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FDR, this talk page is to be used to request unblocks, something you are no longer doing. Come back in 6 months, and I will evaluate your contributions on other projects then. Until then, please do not continue to post here unless it is an unblock request. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to socking accusation

On this talk page, [68], it was insinuated that AlexMota300 is me, he is not. For one thing, although I edited age of consent articles a lot, that was never the ONLY topic I edited, that's the only topic, along with homosexual rights, that AlexMota300 edits. Also, you will notice he has a different writing style from mine. AlexMota300 seems to have a Spanish accent, I believe he's from a Spanish speaking country. I have NOT been editing wikipedia since I agreed with Tiptoety not to. And I don't intend to "ramble" about the user who attacked me for doing that anymore, with her from now on my words will only be "I have nothing to say to you or about you". Another difference is it seems AlexMota300 is an advocate of homosexuality, which I oppose, and of pedophilia, which I also oppose even though I favor slightly lowering the age of sexual consent. FDR (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong of me to harass/insult Flyer22 in the past, but I did not do that with the post above, and I do NOT intend to anymore, and that's my only comment about her. Now on to the topic of myself as an editor, I want to eventually be allowed back onto English wikipedia, so I've stopped socking. It is possible for people to change. The prosecuting attorney in my county committed felony burglary and felony assault, but later joined the same police department that arrested him and became a police officer, and then later won election as prosecuting attorney against his predecessor, the attorney who had prosecuted him, that proves that people can change. On Simple English wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons, I have refrained from doing anything disruptive, and have made good edits,I also responded positively to correction there,unlike in the past,[69],[70].FDR (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to another socking accusation.

Anthony Bradbury,[71] ,suggests Emyth is my sock. That's false. Emyth didn't edit in many of the same topic areas I did, though he edited Theosophy and that may have been a topic I've edited. I don't remember if I ever edited it. But in general, we did not edit the same topic areas. I'm not going to use my talk page for anything else before I request an unblock in 6 months, but any time a person falsely accuses me of socking, I'll respond. FDR (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Emyth's editing history. The only 3 topics I recognized him editing that I've ever been interested in are the Theosophical Society, Abraham Maslow, and Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. I'm pretty sure I never edited an article related to Maslow or the hierarchy on wikipedia. I don't remember whether I ever edited any Theosophical Society related articles with 1 exception. I created the article Father Ernetti's Chronovisor,which is largely about the Theosophical Society. I realize creating that article was a mistake, because it wasn't encyclopedic. There is not much of a similarity in topic choice. FDR (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how Checkuser works. But here's a suggestion I have for possibilities about why it mistakenly concluded Emyth and I use the same computer. I.p. addresses can provide internet access for multiple computers from the same i.p. address sometimes. For example, sometimes in the past I have edited English wikipedia from an i.p. address, and noticed that in the edit history for that i.p. address, things I could not possibly have written/didn't remember writing were there, that must have been because someone else in my neighborhood edited wikipedia, and logged on from the same i.p. address. Maybe if 2 computers use the same i.p. address sometimes, that leads to a mistaken conclusion that they are the same computer. I've logged onto wikipedia from public locations such as libraries before, and maybe someone else logged on afterwards on the same computer, that's another possibility. FDR (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email from Anthony Bradbury where he claimed to never have said Emyth is a sock of mine, but he implied it by asking Emyth, [72]. Questions like that aren't questions, they're disguised statements so if the person talking ends up being wrong, he can lie and say he was only asking, not stating. That's a tactic police often use when they are interviewing suspects. He said my denial was proof I'm Emyth. He has a predetermined conclusion. I'm not Emyth. He didn't edit anything of interest to me besides what I mentioned,Mormonism, and articles on Eastern Religions. He had a different writing style and attitude from mine. I had a bad attitude, and got in conflicts with editors who had negative attitudes, he seems like he's edited without conflict. Though I've not looked closely at his editing. He started editing under his account name in 2003. I think I edited wikipedia under ips then,but I never used a registered account before FDR in 2005. FDR (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't email Anthony after he said he didn't want my emails. FDR (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]