User talk:Illuminato/archive

I have addressed your objections at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cornell University/archive1 and would like further comments. Thanks! -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the additional changes. —mercuryboard^talk 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed all of your objections at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom DeLay. Please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done before you are willing to vote "Support". Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 06:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job fixing up the adolescence article. Jecowa 07:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey illuminato... about the adolescence article.

I see you restored the text i deleted WITHOUT CITING good reasons. Andi must have you know that what was in there IS biased. IS not backed up either by scientific OR nonrelegiously based evidence. And lacks ANY nuetrality WHATSOEVER!. Wikipedia is not a place to inject political opinions..

And the adolescence article is probably a reference for who knows HOW MANY multitudes of paretsn and teens seeking info on adolescence and teen sexuality in geenral or in detail. Replacing my CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL backed information with leonard sax's own 'facts' on how teen sex is just a hook-up and that teen are emotionally immature is NOT valid!!!.

There is no way to measure if it's just a hook-up, and teenagers are quite capable of compassionate relationships... imagine how many teens you could have scared to death because they came here looking for information and now think that sexi s horrible and a disease until when... at age 18 it magically becomes... 'natural and acceptable'...

THERE ISN'T EVEN MENTION OF AGE OF CONSENT LAWS!. Don't think of your own opinions... think of the kids that come here looking for info. I redeleted this biased information and have requested protection from editing immediately.

I might be new to editing wikipedia but i know a lie* when i see one

• basically all of the completely unnuetral and unwikipedia acceptable information found on the page covering 'teen psychology and adolescence in general'.

P.S. sax's info is copied onto the psychology page when it doesn't quite fit... ---___---

P.S.S.

I would REALLY appreciate it if more sources backing up the claims of harm done to teenagers from sex/ intoxication causing it/reducing embarrasment could be provided 'hopefully' in internet form that are seperate from Leonard sax's theories as a LARGE amount of ther references are from Leonard Sax and it would be gratefully acknowledged if you could come up with more sources to back up Sax's claims due to his ideas and facts filling up a lot of the topic of teen sexuality.

Oh yes... I'm wondering about a seperate wikipedia article SPECIFICALLY for teen sexuality and activity/behaviour due to the fact that it is a bit long and if info about other countries are included the length might be increased DRAMATICALLY.

Thus warranting another article based solely on this.

I hope this can be used as a temporary replacement for the section on teen sexuality due to it's easily verifiable and trustworthy nature. (The Centers For Disease Control are pretty reliable in my opinion and many others) Plus it's layout would EASILY allow for inclusion of information on adolescent sexual activity and sexuality in other countries.. oh yes i'm thinking. Could someone come up with some internet sources to show that adolescents have as diverse sexual orientations as adults?, that would be a given and add some more info other then statistics on pregnancy and STD transmission.

I myself KNOW that teenagers (I myself am a teenager, a little over 14) have varied orientations both homo, hetero, and paraphilic, but do ont know of many good studies or surveys to prove this point which aren't under hot debate.

below is my idea of a good temporary replacement, i've also contacted an admin a few days ago to see if they can help out in this matter. Not sure if they'll get back to me though)

Your changes and 'facts' in the article on adolescence and adolescent psychology have also come to the attention of two other users. (The psychology one has also been critiqued by yet ANOTHER user whom i havn't been able to contact) If needed i would like to arrange a group discussion of this article to decide what to do.

---

http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpv_learn_myths.cfm

While a highly controversial topic, both sides of the issue for and against this activity have been fighting fiercely to prove their points on both relegious, secular, scientific, and statistical grounds.

This section deals with....

Adolescent Sexual Activity In The United States

Research (Shown in the paragraph below) HAS proven In The United States however that pregnancy and std transmission in sexually active teens has gone down dramatically over the past 10 years, both of which have been leading secular reasons for stopping adolescent sexual activity (For pregnancy this is vaginal intercourse and for STD's like HIV it is anal, oral, or vaginal sex that counts towards the statistics, other STD's like syphillis etc. are available at the reference page)

Centers For Disease Control study On Rates For STD, and Pregnancy in United States teens

Of US teens aged 15-19 who are having sexual intercourse almost all (98%) use at least one form of contraception. The most popular form, at 94% usage, are condoms and the birth control pill at 61%. [4]

U.S. teen pregnancies had decreased 28% between 1990 and 200 from 117 pregnancies of every 1,000 to 84 per 1,000 by the year 2,000.[5]

Plase note however that WORLDWIDE: "Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own."[6]

Also, in the case of HPV condoms DO NOT completely stop the risk of contraction oh HPV, however the use of condoms has been shown by studies to lower the risk of getting this Disease[7]

Some of these viruses are called "high-risk" types, and may cause abnormal Pap tests. They may also lead to cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or penis. Others are called "low-risk" types, and they may cause mild Pap test abnormalities or genital warts. Genital warts are single or multiple growths or bumps that appear in the genital area, and sometimes are cauliflower shaped.

yours truly, Nateland 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you uploaded this picture in September, and it was deleted as inappropriate. We cannot allow exposed pictures of private individuals, as we have no way of verifying that the subject (as well as the owner of the picture) consents. The pictures, or similar, have since been uploaded from another account. I was just wondering whether you had any idea who was doing this. And, if you did, whether you might ask them to desist.--Doc^g 15:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for your response. The uploader has been told a number of times, but as they are using single purpose accounts, it is difficult to pin them down. I guess I'll just need to keep watching the article. But again thanks. --Doc^g 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am lodging a formal complaint about the user illuminato.

Why?, because he IS ALWAYS inserting every possible kind of weasel word, POV statement, and he CONSISTENTLY reverts changes made by me and other people back to a HIGHLY POV state.

I am stating this now.

I request that Illuminato be BANNED from editing Wikipedia for a while at least. Due to his constant unwillingness to allow ANY sort of lettering into wikipedia other than his own biased views.

This has been glaringly obvious to me in the articles on

Adolescence, namely the adolescent sexuality section. And the new article created on Adolescent sexuality. Which he has CONSTANTLY been reverting back into an incredibly biased state with sources from 2 year old single day of printing newspapers, use of HIGHLY DUBIOUS sources to back up his OBVIOUSLY POV statements and claims which he injects, and how he HAS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS disregarded the requests and wishes of me and other people on wikipedia in order to revert and basically vandalize articles so they reflect a TOTALLY BIASED POV,

I am sick and tired of this and will go into a revert war if need be until this gets fixed as HARDLY ANYTHING has managed to be accomplished with his constant interference which DOES NOTHING I repeat... NOTHING to help the article out whatsoever...... Although i am asking help from my fellow wikipedians n solving this issue and perhaps calling up a moderation committee person.

If you check over the discussions and histories on these two articles I am sure you will CLEARLY see the point of contention.

NOTE:your edit said fixing up the front part of the topic.... except it was basically reverting the article. now THAT is what REALLY annoys me, lying in order to rebias an article which is ALREADY in dire need of improvement.

I hope my wishes are at least considered or met.

Nateland 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Illuminato shouldn't be banned. User:Illuminato isn't reverting User:Nateland's edits out of maliciousness, he is doing it to restore the articles. User:Nateland removed the entire contents of the Adolescence article. User:Illuminato hasn't been lying as previously claimed, but User:Nateland deleted large portions of an article, called it a minor change, and didn't mention the deletion in the edit summary. That would be considered as a misrepresentation of the facts. User:Illuminato is respectful. User:Nateland is refers to people he disagrees with as trolls. User:Nateland says POV is bad, but then adds his own point of view to the article. All related major points of view should be included in Wikipedia article. Points of views should be mentioned as opinions unless they can be backed up as fact with reliable sources. Jecowa 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Nateland has been acting in an immature and juvenile manner despite best attempts to warn against this and civil discussion. I have placed a final warning on Nateland’s talk page as an unfortunate last resort. Any further problems and I will refer Nateland to an administrator myself. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 21:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unthirded, Look I've CLEARLY explained my view of things and the situation on talk:adolescent sexuality and on fd0mans page, if you will be kind enough to do so then look at those pages and i will CLEARLY explain the circumstances and situation, you might also want to check out the talk for the main article on adolescence and the histories of the two articles for the whole dispute, there is also a few things on adolescent psychology i got into an argument with Illuminato with... although that article seems to be in stable condition for now.

Also, I posted this complaint about a week ago and forwarded it to an administrator, now!. I am no idiot, nor am I an immature juvenile. I would only post a formal complaint, report someone for a 3RR violation, or forward to an administrator if i was Seriously concerned. (Basically it was not uncivil to to report Illuminato as he broke the 3RR and despite my warning him and asking him to post his changes for discussion he simply ingnored it.) also, since Illuminato has deleted the final warning template so shall I delete mine.

That's it, and PLEASE get off my back, no need to gang up on me.. I think we should focus on improving the article at the moment, discomforts can be ironed or battled out later and at another place & time then wikipedia.

Oh yes, i have posted Multiple proposals for changes to the page out of which Illuminato has responded to NONE. Yet he still went about editing as he pleased...

It's quite annoying. Nateland 01:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have reverted it again I have reported you for vandalism.

Editors ARE allowed to do 3RR reports if need be. I will wait until an admin responds however to fix the damage you have done. Nateland 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________ "Teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their [sexual] behavior."[4] According to Lynn Ponton, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco and author of The Sex Lives of Teenagers, "early initiation into sexual behaviors [takes] a toll on teens' mental health. The result, she says, can be 'dependency on boyfriends and girlfriends, serious depression around breakups and cheating, [and a] lack of goals.'"[4] As adolescents are not mentally or emotionally prepared to handle feelings and emotions that come with sex, nor financially able to support children, "early sexual activity - whether in or out of a romantic relationship - does far more harm than good."[5]

A minority, including journalist Judith Levine, believes that sexual activity among adolescents and even children is natural and causes little to no harm if contraception is used. She believes that since humans are sexual beings that even the smallest children will most likely end up taking part in sex rehearsal play with other children out of their own explorations and that it causes no harm.[6]

_________________________________________________________-- Human sexual behavior generally and adolescent sexual behavior in most individuals is typically influenced, or heavily affected by norms from the culture in which the individual lives. Examples of such norms are prohibitions on sexual intercourse before marriage, against homosexual sexual activity, or other taboo activities, because the religion or culture to which the individual belongs forbids them. Sometimes individuals choose not to ascribe to culturally or religious imposed norms.

The text inside the dashed lines is a MAJOR thing i think we need to clean up ASAP. You see, that is a U.S centric gropu of opinions from both sides of a U.S. centric issue with U.S sources. If this article is on world adolescent sexuality (As I think it has been consensually declared as such)

Then I think we need to go along with my earlier post which you reverted and put that in a general United states section like i had on my edits before you reverted it.

THEN underneath we put in the 3 categories, experiences of adolescents during sex If applicable, (this might be a bit hard to gather data on as easily peer accessible sources for this subtopic, are scarce), motivations for engaging in sex can be explained in part by the KFF/Seventeen Magazine survey and by Leonard Sax's stuff (I'll not argue over the Saxion data, but i want to see some sources as you agreed you'd do), and then lastly, Frequency of sex among adoloscents, (I think that CDC and.or other VERY well known sources should be used for this.

Oh yes, and a subsection on contraception usage, I have the CDC data and can find some more, this again should be added to with easily accessible VERY well known sources (Preferably in internet form).

And the Britain section (Well, now it's not totally US centric because its got 2 countries, although we should try and add data from other ocuntries as well) The opening though should comprise of THIS, it seems nuetral enough and worldwide applicable.

Human sexual behavior generally and adolescent sexual behavior in most individuals is typically influenced, or heavily affected by norms from the culture in which the individual lives. Examples of such norms are prohibitions on sexual intercourse before marriage, against homosexual sexual activity, or other taboo activities, because the religion or culture to which the individual belongs forbids them. Sometimes individuals choose not to ascribe to culturally or religious imposed norms.

The above seems pretty good, then in the general adolescent sex in the united states section we can add in the dashed paragraphs, and if you don't mind i'll put in my brief summary of organizations (Or just the advocates for youth one) And perhaps we can try and format it so that the two major opposing viewpoints can be put into General info subsections like FOR and AGAINST in order to reduce the problem of inequal formatting that has occured in the past.

That should clear it up, and we can add in other countries as we go along. (OR make a stub-like general info on adolescent sexuality that has links to articles on adolescent sexuality in other countries.

And... I think that we should include how Adolescent sexual orientations can differ etc. etc. (So it's more than just statistical and represented viewpoint data), I once did thata couple of hours ago, but it got deleted. I hope that it can be kept inside.

Maybe then.. (Yes i know. this is a FULL summary of fixes and additions that i think should be made) We can add links to sexual fetishism LGBT homosexuality heterosexuality asexuality or whatever.

So what does everyone think of this proposal? NOTE: A copy of this proposal is on the adolescent sexuality main article talk page.

The only thing is that with the high volume of views which can easily be construed as 'against' when compared to those that can be construed themselves as 'for' it is in my opinion a good idea to sort them out like that so that people can get both sides of the issue with ease.

I mean, the current article is a MESS if you don't mind me saying... (AT least father down in it), just one big jumble of words with everything mixed in, now i won't argue the 'trying to get more spotlgiht for your views' viewpoint.

But with it in such a jumble it's bound (In my opinion) to be Really really hard to read it through and get the sources etc....

I mean, we should at least sort the article out by who claims what. And I still think that the Advocates For Youth reference should be included to help equalize the article as i said before. You might not be obligated to give 'minority' views much sunlight, BUT as the FOR side makes up literally half (or a third counting the inbetween) due to the huge volume of people in this country whom have either a for, against, or inbetween viewpoint.

It DOES make up a significant portion of this article. Anyways, we cannot I repear Cannot have the ponton lynn etc. quotes at the START of an article on the worldwide views of Adolescence... i'm sorry if this goes against your views, I understand how you must feel right now.... but for a brief summary of worldwide views I SERIOUSLY think that keeping it to the first paragraph explaining possible cultural & relegious norms etc. is a good idea and that we relegate the Judith Levine, Leonard Sax, and Ponton Lynn opinions down to the section from the United states and seperate them into the 3 categories.

Also, a user had included a brief few words in the article about muslim views on adolescent sex that got deleted in your revert, check out his talk page, his username is Paul Foord, I gave him some suggestions for adding the brief mentions in it and I think that this might end up branching off into other articles....

NOTE:A. and B. of the below i have done, namely added the ref and relegated ALL pov's to the US section, please discuss changes on the talk page BEFORE making ANY changes... there has been far to much reverting for progress to be made with yet ANOTHER revert.

But anyways, in summary here's what I plab to do NOW.

A. Add the AFY (Advocates for Youth) mention and description IN the main United states part.

B. relegate ALL paragraphs and citations WHICH are POV or come from the above mentioned authors and not a basic description of possible worldwide views of this subject to their respective country sections (Namely the United states section), and before you revert this illuminato, PLEASE discuss it here. We should wait AT LEAST a couple of days and get peoples consensus on the above proposal etc.

C. try and sort out the jumbled text and fix some refs i added early on in editing this article when it was still only a section of adolescence

And what I request be done in or at least SERIOUSLY discussed in the immediate future (within a week).

A. making sections for various authorities and so called experts on the subject OR making for and Against sections for the reasons i mentioned above.

The current revision should be an acceptable compromise to you Illuminato, and since we're the only two people 'on' this article tonight I say we quit bickering and let it rest?

Agreed?

(I'm going to bed now, I'll place a copy of this in your talk page) And i read the guidelines for leads, but since there are so many potential (And i'm sure existing worldwide views) on this subject that we should simply put those in each respective countries section.

But I must point out, THERE IS NO debate like this about sexual activity between ANYONE over 18 (Even for homosexuals it's not as much as this). It's like the day you turn 18 BOOM!, most controversy and government intervention stops... --___-- seems a bit needless to me considering adolescents are normally sexually mature by the late teens or earlier and EVERYONE makea mistakes and learns from them.

For one who denies using POV so MUCH!. You append THIS and MORE lines.

Most experts agree that "teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their [sexual] behavior

Excuse me, but that's a WEASEL-WORD, hence the TEMPLATE!. I don't think MOST experts agree, in fact, you'd be suprised to hear the WIDE and FAR ranging opinions many experts have on the topic.

And cutting out the most important part of the lead and sticking in U.S. views (I know you though that sentence fits but it doesn't, a fair portion of the world doesn't worry if adolescents will have good sexual experiences or not, they just think it's natural and good and not-so-good things will happen, so don't make that seem like the WWview)

I Really hate to say this but HOW did YOU ever stoop DOWN to putting in things like

Most experts agree that "teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their [sexual] behavior

... weasel-words etc. No wonder it got protected, I'd been editing on it for over 13 hours yesterday and went to bed, I wake up at 12:00 today (The afternoon), and BOOM!, someone switched it around Big Time.

If you did that on accident (Seems hard to believe considering your self described knowledge and abidence by wikipedia rules) Then I forgive but remind you to be more careful in the future.

If you DID do that just to plot your own views with those of experts by twisting their words....

Then FIX IT!!! 'Most' wasn't in Lynn Ponton's original quote as you put it, and that's like twisting a study around (Comparable to the Meese commission's twsting and abstracting scientists and sociologists studies, most of whom complained)

If we're ever going to fix this we need to be willing to allow some things that we don't want to go in there, and Weasel words and switching things around like that (And also messing up the 'minority' viewpoints by taking out some of what they believe in... check the Advocates For Youthl ink that I CLEARLY placed in the article. They do more than what is still in the article) Is not allowed if we go by wikipedia guidelines.

I'm sorry to say this but i'm REALLY dissapointed in you!

I mean c'mon!, if you've been using wikipedia so long than why do this.. especially after using my age against to invalidate my opinions on the editing of the subject?.

That's all for now... Nateland 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my friends were either not at home, or with their step parents, or lived too far away to bike to in cold weather. (It's only three or four or five miles but STILL).

Anyways, for me, if i'm bored, i go on my computer!. (Reading i sometimes do, video games... not so much) Andi figured i'd engage myself in a good old fashioned round of 'edit da wiki!' you know, help out with some article i'm focusing on at the moment and try to resolve them.

(Yes it was a saturday, but I was too lazy to go outside, even though it IS a warm winter, and wikipedia is Great for keeping me occupied if i get bored)

Anyways, i kinda biased it myself by saying that they FULLY supported it. But I know they at least SUPPORT allowing adolescents to make their own sexual decisions, that quote might not be plastered all over every page they have.

But the slogan itself.

right. respect. responsibility. Although if you need a link for some proof on the spot here ya go,

"RESPONSIBILITY: Society has the responsibility to provide young people with the tools they need to safeguard their sexual health, and young people have the responsibility to protect themselves from too-early childbearing and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV."^[1]

By saying they have the responsibility that means pretty much they have the right to make sexual choices, that's basically one of the pillars of the organization. (They might not support it FULLY, but they DEFINATELY DO support allowing adolescents to make their own sexual decisions and have easy access to contraception, comprehensive sex-education, and EC if need be.

That's pretty indicative of their views. Cheers

Nateland 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and oh yes, my gripe is that the START of the lead is someones own moral and/or scientific opinion on adolescent sexuality. But that opinion might probably doesn't apply to the a lot, or even most, and i'm pretty darn sure NOT ALL of the world !!!. You see, the sentence that got relegated to the bottom pretty much layed out the stuff, and a summary of such a highly controversial subject (At least in the middle east, and North America and britain) is going to make it NEARLY IMPPOSIBLE to fit in a good summary without exclusivising it.

Which is what happened, so that's why I wanted the basic generic summary of how cultural norms etc. effect activites etc. etc. to stay in the lead, and a note saying issues specific to each country and/or region /relegion etc. etc. be placed in the lead so that people would KNOW where to find them.

It's just too specific and biased to keep it the way it is. The rest i can focus on later (Except if you don't mind i want to fix the survey from, 17 magazine and the KFF so that it says something more to what it could indicate, because saying a cultural shift is happening in that context is like saying Adolescents already DO practice unsafe sex habits, which is clearly biased by mine and i'm sure YOUR means. So i would restate it saying

However, earlier research done in 2000 by ___ & ___ could point to an already cultural norm not recognized by the mass media

(It IS quite obvious that in the MM adolescent sex is viewed with distaste 99.8761% of the time and that leonard sax and lynn ponton THEMSELVES are in the mass media. THEN we could maybe say after the NPOV part,

or it is indicative of a shift in sexual behaviour among adolescents from an existing culture norm. (See what i mean?, human language is VERY easily switchable as you know... and we could very very easily make it POV Like that statement is now)

Other then that... I'm ok with what's in their, a bit of reformatting is needed, and a subsection in the U.S., britain and other countries to be added should be placed inside detailing sexual diversity among adolescents (not just HOW they discover their orientations but saying that sexual orientations among adolescents is as diverse as that of adults (Which it is, as they're sexually mature if not emotionally as you so stubbornly put it :-)

Although liquid sexuality is ALWAYS a possibility (But let's not be nit picky ok?)

Cheers

  Nateland 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminato, we're talking about a MAIN ARTICLE for pov's on this subject. And not as a POV fork... no, it would be to reduce edit warring in THIS article and allow things to actually get done such as inputting scientific data and such which to me hold more precendence than how many and whose POV'S are in the article. It is not meant as a POV fork, it's meant as a POV compromise. I think that Jecowas usage of the term is simply mean't to try and detract from what I have been saying for weeks now in order to push his OWN views into the article.

Besides, your creation of the other articles IS a POV fork that would allow much easier POV'ing and crookedness of articles due to their immensity once a bunch of countries are added.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What do you take me for? An idiot??

The article is not even remotely long enough to warrant spin-offs. And as far as I know there is NO sectino on India, and if we moved the POV to a MAIN ARTICLE on adolescent sexuality controversies than the time it would take for it to become too 'long' would be increased DRAMATICALLY.

Please, don't try to use WP:guidelines to try and deflect everything I have to say, ESPECIALLY if they're as weakly founded as the idea 'that the article is too long'.

I know what your views are, And i might not agree with them, nor respect them really. But I WON'T stand for ANY views interfering with the progress of this article.

You might think that I'm wrong and you're right, but let me put this up for a vote in the adolescent sexuality:talk

PLUS! considering the time that you spent on trying to keep the article your way AMAP i'm suprised to see you running off and creating 'new' articles...

Why give up ALL that hard work eh?, especially since it resulted in a protection being placed on the article.

Don't you want to resolve it AQAP?

Nateland 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

older discussion

WHY in the world would you blank this page all of a sudden? You DO know that it can be readily accessed in the history, it is ALSO not considered very good taste to edit your talk page.

ESPECIALLY deleting it all. Which in my opinion is outright censorship! of all the people who've posted on this page, I will wait for an answer...

Then I will restore it. IF you delete this message then i might just very well take my troubles up the ladder in order to get action taken against you for what I percieve is censorship and outright denial of other peoples postings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok... well, with fairly recent proposals etc. on your talk page. I think cleaning it up should be mainly of OLD posts, not those made in the last few days.

Think about this. Nateland 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw the aditions you made to the Culture of the United States article I recently "adopted." I have to say I'm impressed-it's certainly a solid and well referenced discussion of the subject- Kudos. The problem is, however, that the article is already very long and this new discussion adds another 13Kb. Is it possible to move just some of the info to your adolescent suxality in the US article (Great Job on that btw- I admire boldness ;-)). That way your adolescent sex article might get to GA status and we can curb the length of the Culture of the US article a bit. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 06:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. the article already had a reference section ;-) (Though it's nice to see proper referencing!)[reply]

cup of tea? ? Nateland 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you re-add the link I just removed? This clearly makes the article POV. The point of the article is to discuss sexuality in a healthy way, not push young people towards christian non-sex groups. This link clearly has no purpose. If you have a message to communicate, include it in the article and reference it. Atom 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Kagema Anonymous sex Harem effect Human male sexuality Tony Goldwyn Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine Hawaii House of Representatives Forced chastity Troubleshooting Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality Montana State Legislature My Secret Garden Montana Senate Arkansas General Assembly University of the Philippines, Diliman New Mexico Legislature Behavior change Genital stage Tanner stage

Cleanup Cryptos Gary Ferguson Nick Lachey Merge Future Wikia Fornication Add Sources Shakira discography Erotophobia Holy Cross College Ryde Wikify Red Faction Wohlstandskinder Agricultural education Expand Demographic history of the United States Visual arts of the United States Art education

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded to your earlier message at my talk page, you could read that there. As for the couple of other changes you made recently, I had made edits to make the article better, and I think we have a difference of opinion on things. In two instances, I tried to remove the POV so that it directly addressed the facts. In one place it suggests that girls in sports have the "positive" effect for girls, and then suggest in another sentence that she is less likely to be sexually active and less likely to get pregnant. That is a POV statement, and so my interest is in presenting the facts, rather than interpretation. Not everyone would consider involvement in sports, or less likely to be "positive" or "negative". No judgements are needed there. Your point that if it prevents a teenager from becoming pregnant when she did not want to be is beneficial could be correct. Better, in my opinion, is to present the facts, and avoid judgements or commentary. The other place you added back a comment that said "Such relationships are "less sustained, often not monogamous and [have] lower levels of satisfaction" The problem with that statement (or quote) is that 1) It is someones opinion, and not the product of research. And two, it suggests that monogamy is a goal, or that non-monogamy is negative. This article isn't about the pro's or cons of monogamy versus non-monogamy, and should be left out. The article should be about how adolescents can build healthy relationships versus the opposite. The third place is regarding HPV. I think that HPV can be a danger also, but the original quote gave a partial quote suggesting that condoms do not protect against HPV. The problem I had with that is that the cited quote did not say that. "Condoms provide little protection against the human papillomavirus (HPV), which may lead to certain types of cancer and genital warts" was what the article said. However the citation says "HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.". Certainly the complete quote is better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atomaton (talk • contribs) 12:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. WP:NPOV says, among otehr things

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

I know that you may not agree with the position that adolescent sexuality is normal and healthy. That's fine, but even if you should not agree, many people feel that way. Sexual interaction, at any age, has many dangers. Whether you agree or not, there are a great many people who feel that the earlier that teenagers learn the facts about sex, the safer they can be from danger. Alos, that if they have a safe environment for learning about relationshsips, rather than getting little relationships experience, the more mature they are in their 20's to deal with relationshsips. This is a POV. WP:NPOV allows for putting different POV's in an article. Trying to "weaken" a POV that one disagrees with is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Consider if someone where to make the statement "A Majority of people agree with Judith Levine" you, or someone else would probably say: "If that is true, then show reference or citation supporting that". As you have chosen to change the statement to say "A minority, including journalist Judith Levine" I suggest the same thing. Can you back that up with a citation please?

Per NPOV policy, It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As editors we need to state the cited viewpoints as neutrally as possible, and let readers form their own opinions. Atom 23:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As you have chosen to change the statement to say "A minority, including journalist Judith Levine" I suggest the same thing. Can you back that up with a citation please?"

I suggest you look at the article on Levine's book, Harmful to Minors, here on WP. It says: "Because of its controversial nature and content, it was nearly impossible for Levine to find a publisher — one prospective publisher even called it "radioactive."" In it she calls for, among other things, weakening kiddy porn laws. Her "radioactive" views are clearly not in the majority. --Illuminato 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I understand that discussing this is controversial. It is commonly known that in the U.S. people are very prudish and victorian regarding discussing sexuality. Of course, I have the book in my personal sexuality library. I am aware of the controversy it caused at the time it was published since I am here in Minneapolis, and went to the U of M also. You make a good case for suggesting that publishing such material is controversial. You don't make any case about whether the view that adolescent sexuality is normal and healthy is a minority or majority view.

The scope of the issue, although the article is focused on the U.S. is much broader than the U.S. Even if we were to agree that it would seem that within the U.S. that view might be a minority view, it would be necessary to document that factually, not through intuition, or sythesis of a variety of sources. Our (you and I) job is one of being good editors, not to support and project a particular viewpoint (See WP:POINT.) Even if there were more evidence that adults within the U.S. view adolescent sexuality as a negative thing, the data supports that a majority of teenagers (then, when we were teenagers, and now) engage in various forms of sexuality, and will continue to, and that the rate is rising, not declining. This would suggest that even if Adults in the U.S. were to feel that way, that teenagers don't necessarily feel that way. Teenagers have rights too, and their viewpoints are also pertinent in an article with this topic. Historically, prior to Victorian England, Puritanism and the courge of religious domination, society and culture accepted people marrying and starting families in the early teens. Even now, after the repression of puritanism, and then the reawakening of the sexual revolution, it is legal for people as young as age 14 to marry in many states. Most states allow consensual sexual intercourse between teenagers of similar age at age 14, and with others more than two years older than themselves at age 16 and older. Now, it is not important whether you, or I agree with that, or feel that it should change in some way. What I think we agree on is that getting involved sexually, at any age, teens, 20's, 30's and older has any number of health and psychological hazards. As teens are less experienced and more vulnerable, generally speaking, and as data suggest that they do, and will continue to develop relationships, including some with a sexual aspect, it is common sense that the better educated and knowledgeable they are about the dangers, the less risk they will be likely to be exposed to, regardless of the source, and regardless of the age. Approaches by religious group to "save yourself for marriage" and restricting knowledge of sexuality and teaching abstinence may theoretically be a safer approach, however data suggest that those techniques have been less effective, and increase risk.

Regardless of whether you see that view, or agree to some degree – or not, what is important is that we as Wikipedia editors make an article that explains the breadth of risks (documented with sources) and helps to educate people of all ages as to the dangers so that their waters (regardless of the approach they personally decide to take) are better charted.

Back to the main point. Obviously many people have positive views of adolescent sexuality, some in the direction of Judith Levine and others in similar but different directions. It is a well documented point of view. It is our job as editors to explore that perspective as well as other perspectives that can be supported by facts and citations. It is not our job to push the reader towards one view, or away from another point of view. Commentary and "spin" to try and suggest that one view is right and the other wrong, or one a "majority" and another a "minority" is not compatible with the WP:NPOV policy. This policy may possibly be the most important policy in Wikipedia.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

[1][2][3]

I am always too wordy, so let me try to end clearly. Trying to de-emphasize a legitimate POV, such as that of people who feel that adolescent sexuality is a normal part of being human, by characterizing their position as "minority" is not compatible with WP:NPOV and is unacceptable.

Thanks, Atom 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I not only agree with Atom's take on this issue, I feel strongly enough about the poor writing and blatant POV-pushing in Adolescent sexuality and Adolescent sexuality in the United States are so problematic that most of the content should be deleted. If you'd like to weigh in on this, go to Talk: Adolescent_sexuality: Merge proposal/state of article. Iamcuriousblue 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just reverting my edit. Which I thought was better and had a more wordly view. It had logical space for ALL cultures and trains of thought. Yours doesn't. It's biased. ADMIT it.

Why don't you simply DISCUSS it on the discussion page before reverting?. In case you don't realize, multiple people on the talk page are in disagreement with your edits and the state of the articles adolescent sexuality and adolescent sexuality in the united states. The only person who seems to be on your side is an anonymous IP adress that had been making somewhat disruptive changes and edits for a few months by now while never registering.

I urge you to reconcile and consider the possibility that MAYBE you DON'T have to inject your Conservative agenda all throughout the article. PERHAPS this article is about adolescent sexuality ITSELF. NOT views on it.

Sincerely (albeit a little angrily) Nateland 21:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nateland,

I know you don't like to have your age interjected into this, but I think this is an instance when how young you are shows. Your writing skills just are not there yet. This is not a knock against you - I am sure as you grow older they will improve. As an example of why the previous version was better, consider a portion of what you wrote: "As with any sort of mutual sexual activity. With people, animals, or dangerous objects and/or liquids and gases." If you were to show them to your English teacher I am sure he would tell you that neither of those are sentences. They lack verbs and thus are fragments. You can see why the previous version was better written. You will also notice that when I reverted it I tried to incorporate your additions.--Illuminato 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

nateland,

I know you don't like to have your age interjected into this, but I think this is an instance when how young you are shows. Your writing skills just are not there yet. This is not a knock against you - I am sure as you grow older they will improve. As an example of why the previous version was better, consider a portion of what you wrote: "As with any sort of mutual sexual activity. With people, animals, or dangerous objects and/or liquids and gases." If you were to show them to your English teacher I am sure he would tell you that neither of those are sentences. They lack verbs and thus are fragments. You can see why the previous version was better written. You will also notice that when I reverted it I tried to incorporate your additions.--Illuminato 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why didn't you try and CORRECT these sentences?. Besides, that is simply my writing style and method of incorporating data. That doesn't show hardly ANYTHING about how 'young' I am. There are 50 AND 60 year olds who can't spell worth shit (pardon me).

So maybe it just shows i'm only human and that maybe i didn't bother to triple check it. Sigh..... don't be an idiot. And the reason I don't like my age interjected into this is because it DOESN'T MATTER. By saying 'how young I am'. Are you implying that it reduces the standing of my statements and contributions?.

Wikipedia's policy.. as far as I know is to FIX spelling errors and THAT ANY USEFUL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE CONTRIBUTIONS. AGE doesn't matter.

In my essences eye you, while not acting childish (too subjective a term) are just beating around the bush and playing dodgy-dodgy strikey-strikey in order to undermine my opposition to your additions to your article.

BELIEVE ME. I realize that YOU think abstinence is the world and that teen sex is an inherent evil. But I think differently. Now seeing as the ultimatum in this issue is so easily turned into 'anything goes' and seeing as we're 'only sentient' I say that WE work TOGETHER to give equal share to BOTH AND ALL OPINIONS. In FACT!. The POINT of this article is to TELL ABOUT AND SAY WHAT ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY IS!.

Its primary purpose is NOT to incorporate opinions into the article. And in light of this, I will quit arguing with you over something neither of us can win. ENOUGH with the POV WARS!!!.

Just let the facts shine. In this case SCIENCE and PROVEN LOGIC must shine. You want an article with relegious or relegiously based or just a general article about views on adolescent sexuality. Then go ahead and make one!.

BUT DON'T MESS ARTICLES UP!. That's all I ask. Then once you make that article on opinions on this issue we can argue there. I only ask for equality here. No beating around the bush and no dodge and strike tactics. Nor sneakiness or twisting of rules and using every loophole you possibly can.

Think. Answer this question. What is sexuality?

Think. And answer this. How does sexuality develop in adolescents?, human growth and development, sexual attractions? Who knows. You answer.

Now think one last time. What IS adolescent sexuality?.

Obviously it's sexuality among adolescents. Not sexual activity or sexual development solely. These are subsets of this. And Adolescent Sexuality is a sub set of sexology or sexuality in general as well as adolescence, which in itself is a stage of life. Which in turn is a study in science.

Science in turn is an attempt to understand the universe in a purely logical way. (Using the only way we know how, statistics is part of that way).

And WHY do we attempt to understand the universe? I'd say because we're Sentient. Above the other animals as far as we can tell.

And that Sentience creates thoughts, and opinions. And this discussion loops to the beginning because it has arisen out of opinion.

Welcome to the human condition and our world my friend. I hope you understand what I'm trying to tell you.

At least that's my outlook on life.

And Illuminato. You DID incorporate my additions in the barest most minimalist way. At least you got that Lynn Ponton quotation out of the intro and into the rest of this flea ridden article. Although still, you could have DONE BETTER. You tried that's true. But, you tried to incorporate it in a way that minimizes the other sides POV. The side to which I love and to which you hate. (Excuse my pseudo poetic terminology, it's just the way I write some functional tidbits)

Ech.... yes I had a little bit of stumbling over my rewrite. But it wasn't THAT bad. Like I said above. Let's grant this article equality and make it into something that is in the eye of its intended purpose.

To tell what Adolescent Sexuality is. I don't HOW many times I've said this without you listening.

I will let my views drop and I will expect YOU to do the same. NO POV'S. Just information. Teens'll have sex and that is true. I might have sex myself sometime soon. But you don't have to stick a point-of-view onto that acknowledgement that Adolescent's have sex. I have realized that recently as well, although you don't seem to have realized it so.

Sex is a facet of life. It is as it is. If teens having sex damaged their psyches then MANY MANY teens would be crazy or disturbed right now. And considering how the 'danger' extends up until 18. To marriage for those of us who consider themselves more religious. It seems a bit Illogical for an article that should be composed out of a fair amount of logic.

Maybe I should add into the main article on sexuality that sex is especially damaging to women in 'adult' relationships and that ALL adults should abstain from sex and use en vitro fertilization. The danger can't possibly just 'stop' at 18 can it?.

Consider this as well as an insight into the logic of your added statements. It might do you some good and open up your eyes.

First off. In 'updating' the discussion page you have deleted MANY valid and important complaints against the article. It did not need to be cleaned up. I also had an announcement to fix up the article which was posted today and which you deleted.

Also, by 'reverting' my spelling corrections etc., you undid a fair amount of work on the article. That statement in the beginning IS NOT A SUMMARY. It's an opinion and unless you're foolish enough to assume that everyone shares that point of view that adolescent sex is 'damaging'. Then believe me.

It's a statement by someone. (If it's by you then it doesn't belong. Unless you're famous enough to be on Wikipedia)

Also, by removing those statements, some of which were POV. I had EXTENDED an invitation to you to fix up the article. By making it FREE of pov's. i've told you what the article is supposed to be about. Asked you to use more care in editing. Proposed discussion. Been lenient and given you A LOT of leeway to have your way.

And yet you act like a jerk and persist in injecting your POV'S no matter what. And yes they are YOUR POV'S. You wouldn't put in a point of view that you didn't agree with. So they are your pov's in a sense. An obvious sense which you failed to recognize earlier on when you were messing around with the revert button and engaging me in a revert war.

I'm considering reporting you to an administrator because of the enormous level of stress and hardship you've given me in trying to fix this article. You've been an unmovable mule for the past few months. And it's driving me crazy.

If I can't reason with you. Then I'll have to go up the ladder and GET you to reason. Please play nice. (No subtle fussing) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]