Talk:Adolescent sexuality/Archive 1

message: I've greatly reduced the length of the "sexuality" section in Adolescence -- it's sloppy and runs the risk of a POV fork to have such a lengthy treatment of a subject in a subsection when a separate article also exists. However, I have reproduced the old section below so that editors can mine it for any material that is not also in Adolescent sexuality now.
:69.3.237.3 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some one moved material into article. Paul foord 09:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: related to Adolescence article

message: Adolescent sexuality appears to be one of the critical issues in the US culture wars, behaviour, attitudes and understandings of the topic are US centric. Paul foord 09:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World view

message: Exactly!, in Europe and Japan as far as I know Adolescent sex is HARDLY an issue. 
Although in order to get a good idea of their views we'll need some peeps from Europe and other parts of the globe to do some editing on this.
I myself am American so.... well, yeah. Although I have some Israeli friends who might be able to contribute a tiny bit or more, i'll see if they're willing to help out. 
No one i know from any other place though, sry...
But i never did realize it WAS highly US centric until now. 
Damn is this topic a US culture war.... ech *shudders*. 
I'll be removing some POV statements and links however, and i'm GLAD that this is part of wikiproject sexuality, that's quite a good category. It might even expand coverage of this topic and help straigten out POV statements. 
Nateland 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am totally in agreement with the above. 

message: The intro is still US biased. Change of title would be a better reflection of the article. Also links to Amazon. com are problematic. Paul foord 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe better title would be "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" 

message: 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.
also, i will place a copy of this in Illuminato's talk page so that he knows what my allegations against him are, i am sick and tired of thiss silliness ans i hope it stops here.
NOTE: Illuminato's edit said fixing up the front part of the topic.... except it was basically reverted. 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 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: -|
I rest my case, 
for now Nateland 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a COMPLAINT. 

message: Could someone explain why the link to this article which i put in the main article on adolescence was moved?. I don't see any reason that it doesn't belong... in fact, if the sexuality sectino of that article ever DOES become an unbiased summary than having the link to this article would.. in my opinion
and i think many others would agree, be a neccissity
Nateland 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh yes i almost forgot. 

message: Please keep this article clean—copy & paste are not allowed from web sites with copyrighted information (see Wikipedia’s copyright policy). Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not copy and paste, please. 

message: I added links and put the copied information into CLEAR quotationd.
I believe that the link to siecus is allowed for informational purposes. 
I did copy a bunhc of extra info accidently because the damn reference link screwed up, but THIS is the link to the page. Ask before reverting, you're giving me the impression you just don't like what i'm adding to wikipedia (Which is quite valid information) 
http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html
If you could restore my edit and fix the above reference link to not copy the entire siecus page that would be highly appreicated and MUCH better than just reverting it using 'popups'
Nateland 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Wikipedia Copyright Policy for information on why I reverted your edit.  You copied a lot more information than could be considered to be fair use under United States copyright law.  The only information that you are permitted to copy verbatim is that which has entered the public domain through the expiration of the original copyright—which lasts a very long time for businesses. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i added links 

message: The study data which I added IS from the public domain or is granted for educational use I am pretty sure, if you want me to paraphrase it then tell me so and I will, just don't suddenly revert it, 
If the centers for disease control publishes data then it is AUTOMATICALLY in the public domain, the siecus website just has a brief summary of the data STRAIGHT from those study reports. 
And the KFF data i am fairly sure is usable under fair use, that should be the only thing i would have to paraphrase.
check the links on http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html
Nateland 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paraphrasing is always acceptable.  However, and I have mentioned this before, it is to revert all destructive edits, including copyright infringements.  From the copyright policy: “If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored” (WP:COPY, § 1.3, ¶ 3). —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added study data 

message: It's 4:16 a.m where i live :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  guess what? 

message: I have not got access to this book - is Ponton writing about research of a global, western culture or US specific focus? Paul foord 13:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She uses case studies from her work with San Fransisco teenagers to highlight larger points in the two books I have read from her.  I think most of what she says relates not just to the US, but to all of the developed world.  --Illuminato 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ponton book - research of a global, western culture or US specific focus? 

message: Ok here's the deal bucko, I clearly cited my sources and so far NO ONE but YOU has disagreed with them, you have deleted ENTIRE SECTIONS 2 TIMES in the last few minutes and If you continue to do so i will report you for a 3 revert rule violation. 
Ask Fd0man or any of the other people who helped me correctly paraphrase and reference the siecus and other information, you have NO RIGHT to go about deleting other peoples contributions by the truckload, I've been on wikipedia for less than a month and even I know that. 
I will revert the article back to its state before your reckless editing, if you 'edit' it again and fail to discuss it with ALL of us beforehand then i will report you. 
Nateland 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nateland, as I discussed above, I did not delete any of your proper content.  I just reformatted some of it and made it easier to read, but none of the data you provided was removed.  In fact, it was good data and I commend you for finding it.  However, the version you keep reverting to has several major problems with it.  You change quotes, provide incorrect attributions, misspell words, etc.  The whole idea of wikipedia is that it is something anyone can edit.  I have every right to edit this article in order to clean it up.  Please read my above comments and the version of the article I have again reverted back to so that you can see for yourself that all your data was included.  Also, 'bucko', please read the official policy on Wikipedia:Civility.  It will make for a better experience for all. --Illuminato 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illuminato, you should know his by now.. 

message: Ok, illuminato, I am going to revert your reckless 'edits' and 'fixes' back to its state before you went about destroying them.
IF you decide to mess it up AGAIN without discussing it with the rest of us on the talk page 9That means waiting for a couple of responses) and getting a consensus, then I WILL report you for a 3 revert rule violation. 
A warning will be placed on your talk page.
66.212.201.26 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illuminato this is a warning 

message: Nateland, you keep adding a Weasel Words template to the article.  Instead of continued bickering, why don't you point out some instances of these weasel words.  Then, you and I can join with whomever else is interested and we can fix them.  It is a small project that hopefully we can work together on them and engender some good will.  If you place the statements with weasel words here on the talk page we can work on them to remove the weasel words, and then fix it in the article.  Sound good?  --Illuminato 21:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way forward