Jump to content

User talk:86.132.38.141

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.132.38.141 (talk) at 19:19, 14 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please keep a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia your opinion doesn't matter except on Talk pages and your user pages. Just leave if you think it should. Please stop with the Pedophilia, nonsense. -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 12:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RexNL 13:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalising pages. Please don't put false vandalism warnings on peoples' pages.
That I disagree with the attempts by pedophile advocacy Wikipedians to classify touching up underage boys as "pederasty" than as pedophilia which it in fact is is not vandalism. You are also using false templates as presumably there are supposed to be two other warnings first
However sickos try to word it, touching up underage kids is pedophilia. --86.132.38.141 14:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sceptre (Talk) 14:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text, deliberate misinformation, or repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV is considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. If you feel that this block is unwarranted, you can add the text {{unblock}} below this message with a brief explanation. Sceptre (Talk) 14:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

I AM NOT VANDALISING ANYTHING.

THAT I DISAGREE WITH YOUR PEDOPHILE SUPPORTING VIEW THAT TOUCHING UP LITTLE BOYS IS NOT PEDOPHILIA IS NOT VANDALISM. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH YOU THEY ARE NOT A "VANDAL"

Is Wikipedia run by pedophiles or something? Why is it "illegal" to say that touching up underage kids is pedophilia? It's true, and the law agrees with me. --86.132.38.141 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your request has been rejected. Wikipedia is not advocating any political ideology, and please refrain from POV-pushing. Sceptre (Talk) 14:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an ugly situation. 86.132.38.141 is acting with the good of Wikipedia in mind, and taking drastic action which he honestly feels is warranted. 86, from what I can see you weren't temp-blocked for vandalism per se, but for disrupting the Wikipedia - massive unilateral changes aren't a good thing. Oh, and the two other warnings aren't mandatory, the first one for instance is a 'thanks for testing, please stop' message and can be skipped if the recipient clearly knows what he's doing. --Kizor 14:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. That's like me going to every page about Germans and calling them all Nazis. I've seen his edits, and he is clearly here to start trouble. He's gone to the pages of gay rights activists and called them pedophiles. He's gone to articles about pederasty and call it pedophilia. The fact that is, this person is so ignorant he has no idea that pedophlia is about "touching up" PREPUBESCENT children, not everybody lumped in as younger than whatever a country's arbitrary age of consent laws specify as being an adult.
The last thing Wikipedia needs is another user who thinks that anybody who does not support his fanatical little politica agenda is a part of some pedophile conspiracy. Corax 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice, Corax. That's not exactly the language I'd use, but: 86, there are reasons for disagreeing with that editing spree beyond supporting pedophilia. This fracas is frustrating, but insulting the lot of us by calling us pedophilia supporters doesn't exactly help your case. --Kizor 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Corax's comment. Users are entitled to hold opinions but have to be very careful not to try to use WP as their soapbox to push their POV agenda. Wikipedia has to be very careful to follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I was not "soap-boxing"

The fact is that "love for underage boys" is exactly the same thing as "love for underage people of either sex"
It's pedophilia, pure and simple. Sexual love for children or feeling that children can be erotic, or actively abusing children. Just about every law agrees with me here, why is this blatantly biased POV, naming and categories given special dispensation on Wikipedia?

Also why did Sceptre delete every message I made and then "protect" my page so I couldn't edit it but others could? Hardly goes against the bias thing

Note I did not "vandalize" any "gay activists": I simply changed those that were classified as "pederasty" to pedophilia as they belonged in, and those ones that exclusively support pedophilia to pedophilia advocacy, which is also true.

If anything it is biased to claim that holding sexual desires for children is somehow not pedophilia when it plainly is. -86.132.38.141 19:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.132.38.141&oldid=35176379"