User talk:Homologeo

Welcome!

Hello, Homologeo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, I noticed your interest in Heroes. Feel free to stop by the Heroes WikiProject to meet other editors who contribute to articles related to the show!

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! fmmarianicolon | Talk 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Hi there, thanks for your work on the Heroes episodes. I have a couple of formatting tips for you:

Sentences are followed by two spaces (in practice, this doesn't really matter, but I noticed you were changing them back to one space, which isn't necessary)
Punctuation marks following episode names go outside the quotes - example: A good way to write the title is "Landslide", but not "The Hard Part," nor "Five Years Gone." Exceptions are when the punctuation mark is part of the title - such as ".07%" and "Run!".

Hope these help! -- Chuq (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on pedophile activism

There is currently a (new, official) vote on the issue of whether the anti- and pro- pedophile activism articles should be merged into a single "culture war" article. Having noted your participation in previous discussions on this matter, I thought that I'd invite you to vote. 86.131.41.244 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft version of article in progress

Hey, I recently asked Jmh123 if he could help me in improving a draft version of the pedophile activism article I'm working on. Given your past edits regarding this subject and your apparent ability to keep a cool head, I thought I'd invite you to take a look and see if you'd like to help, as well.

I think the organization is an improvement, but the article still needs a bit of trimming. I have added some references that I think are relevant and that create a more comprehensive description of some of the arguments, but it might be that some less-relevant sources need to be made more concise or removed. I would appreciate it if we could improve the quality of the draft before we consider implementing the reorganization. I will be without access to the Internet from Thursday until Sunday, so I will be unable to offer imput during that time. But I hope you guys can help me in improving this draft before any major changes are made to the article itself. Thanks! Mike D78 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you around? Mike D78 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

So you know, users:

DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
RalphLender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SamDavidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JohnsonRon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MarkWood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and friends, are pretty much all (per arbcom) established sockpuppets that were engaged in intensive POV warring. According to user:Thatcher131, these users are likely long-term banned from Wikipedia.

Such users often reincarnate, as new accounts.

The relevance is, that the pupeteer was very active on some pages I see you are active on. If there is suspicious activity, the above may be useful. You might also want to keep an eye on the relevant pages going forward, for new and similar arriving editors. Note that checkuser was not always able to ID the previous socks as commonly managed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Events?

This is from the Anti-pedophile activism page:

The website contributed to the arrest of James P. Finn III of Michigan in late July of the same year. After their first featured "Wikisposure Project" "article of the month" inspired a mailing of fliers throughout Finn's community, reports say that a family member of Finn's then made allegations of illegal online activities. Finn was found with 600 images and 30 videos of children, of which three have lead to charges of child pornography.[13] He faces up to 20 years in jail. [14] In 1998, James Finn III ("Jimf3") was the webmaster of one of the oldest pedophile communities online, BoyChat.[15] He stepped down from this position in January of 1999.[16]

Finn has disputed the idea that BoyChat and other pedophile resources were breeding grounds for child pornography to the media on several occasions. "I have been active on BoyChat for over two years and I've been the webmaster for about 18 months and I've never known such activities to go on," he says. "First, BoyChat strictly enforces rules against such picture trading and against meeting boys. Not only do I and other administrators watch out for this, a very large cadre of regular posters are careful to warn newcomers about the realities of the board".[17]

I am confused as to the order of events. Did Finn first say, "First, BoyChat strictly enforces rules against such picture trading and against meeting boys. Not only do I and other administrators watch out for this, a very large cadre of regular posters are careful to warn newcomers about the realities of the board" and the was arrested. Or was this statement made after his arrest? Jmm6f488 08:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty interesting case, I admit I'm also interested in the order of events. Since other details related to the case don't seem to have been made public as of yet (if they would ever) such as Finn's admitting to or denying downloading the child pornography found on his computer, I'm more prone to believe this is a statement he made on the BoyChat forum the case describes his having posted to. Possibly asking contributors to that forum who would have a greater interest in the case than us (and be more familiar with searching its archives) could turn up whether or not he said something along those lines there. Even if the statement is quoted from him in custody, it sounds like the sort of thing a controversial forum like that would provide as a standard disclaimer. Tyciol 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boychat has been around for ages, and is a public chat board. In order to remain legal, it enforces a collection of rules, which prohibit using the board for meeting minors, picture trading, graphic depictions of sexual acts, libel, and various other things. So the statement Finn made about Boychat was prior to any of his legal problems, and accurately reflected how the board is run.

PJ then started pressuring BoyChat's ISP's upstream provider, and accusing them publicly of "promoting pedophilia" or whatever. They caved, and threatened to unplug everyone, whereupon a bunch of longstanding Boychat regulars, including Jim, mounted both a fund-raising effort and a search for stable bandwidth. These efforts were successful and Boychat continued to operate.

A person working with PJ then leafleted Jim's neighborhood with fliers calling him a "pedophile activist" and saying he was a danger to children. The local sheriff, rather than investigating this harrassment, decided to investigate Jim instead, stating the opinion that in his professional experience, it was impossible for pedophiles to "resist their urges." He obtained a search warrant, and claims to have raided Jim in the act of downloading the child porn pictures for which he has been charged, which is at the very least a remarkable coincidence rarely seen in law enforcement. The sheriff also characterized a bunch of other stuff on Jim's computer as featuring child-exploitative situations, but since he hasn't been charged for it, it probably wasn't porn. In the past, law enforcement has made such claims about mainstream movies they think appeal to pedophiles, so it's anyone's guess what the other material contained.

I haven't seen anything in the news about the case for weeks, and the last thing I read was Jim's lawyer stating that Jim was innocent of the charges, and that it was their intention to try the case in court, and not in the media.

So that's the sequence of events, based on the news stories I've read, and occasional peeks at stuff posted on PJ and BC. Some have speculated that PJ managed to con Jim into downloading something timed to exactly coincide with the execution of the search warrant. But there's no independent confirmation whether or not that happened. So I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what happens at the trial. Hermitian 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration of the wikisposure edit

I initially posted this on your userpage by mistake, sorry. Please see the talk page of article in question. Tyciol 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit and you tagged it. After looking, I realized you were right to do this, and I should have presented the issue to the talk page and gone over how to properly word the addition and present sources for it. In the midst of going over the resulting Xavier-conundrum I've essentially done all the work I was putting off (consider a mix of guilt, hope and irritation to be the driving forces) which I believe might adequately source the addition. I have described the situation on my message to User_talk:Kurykh. As I'm sure the busy moderator cleans his talk page a lot, I can also copy and paste it here if you like. That, or to the anti-pedophile activism talk page. Or actually, since it seems there's a need to reference it in multiple locations (and indeed, possibly for my personal use) do you think perhaps I should host it on my user page? I'm thinking I should avoiding copying and pasting it since Kurykh expressed irritation at how long-winded it was. But it was a complex issue that couldn't really be summarized I feel.

If you have the time to read it all, do you feel that the evidence surrounding this case is adequate enough to support my addition, in its present form or (with your and other wikipedian's aid) a more proper format? Even though I think Xavier was wrong to remove it (this could have been possibly resolved and the tag removed, or the addition removed if sourcedness was judged inadequate) I now see that it wasn't as good an addition as I had originally thought, and so think it is better not to add anything until it is in a form that is no longer controversial. If possible, I would prefer it if someone else write it from scratch based upon the evidence I have sourced, and as such, I would have no potential to create any description of the issue which might be judged as biased.

I suspect in response to my showing this issue that Perverted-Justice may attempt to blank the article or some of its edits so that there is no evidence of their actions. Due to this, I have saved all of the pages showing this difference. I am not well-versed in how to log wikis, I admit, so hopefully doing so will be considered adequate if I submit the articles or host them somewhere. Tyciol 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

You are listed as involved here. Dyskolos 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-pedophile activism

Hey, just droppping you a note that I volunteered to mediate this case. It looks like everyone's willing to work out a solution, and I look forward to working with you. I've noticed the case has been open for a bit, so I just wanted to ask you to weigh in when necessary. Thanks. justice 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

If you don't agree with a block made by an administrator then the first thing you should do is talk to the admin about it - you often find that they are more than happy to discuss it and remove the block themselves if there is a valid reason to do so. If that doesn't solve the problem, you can take the issue to WP:AN/I where other admins and users can review the block and a consensus can be formed as to what to do. That's the only option you really have I'm affraid other than dispute resolution, but to go down that path, there really needs to be other users that share your concern about a particular admin. Nope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to contact the arbcom, dispute resolution isn't going to help as this issue is already the subject of an arbcom case, I would advise against posting to AN/I for the same reason, SqueakBox 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not aware of the admins involved here so I can't really advise you deeply on the matter. Might be a good idea to take SB's advice if it's already at arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. see this quieries to arbcom request, SqueakBox 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, well for blocks like that then it's best to do as it says and email the arbitration committee about it as it's a private matter that no-one else will know about. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user comments

Mike D78 was banned as a sockpuppet of a banneduser. Therefore I have every right to remove his comments and you have none to restore them. Such an action if repeated could result in your being blocked, just don't go down this path, please, SqueakBox 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to response on this issue from CBDunkerson --CBD 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with Mike D78 Commentary

Hi Homologeo. Thank You for your message. I've been pretty disappointed with wikipedia and they way these edit wars, where pedophilia is the primary subject, are being handled. I believe the indefinite block of Mike D78 is a gross miscarriage of justice. He brought up some very good points and I believe his comments belong on the talk page. It's true he may have been a banned editor and thus a sockpuppet, however, it is very possible that he wasn't and the blocking administrator refused to see that. I don't believe Mike D78 was a disruption either. He always expressed himself eloquently, and with stood Squeakbox's and his barrage of personal insults. Squeakbox, on the other hand, is disruptive and the fact that he goes unpunished for his anti-pedophilia pushing, on anything concerning pedophilia, makes me wonder if he has a close friendship with at least one administrator maybe more. He obviously has a disdain for pedophiles, yet edits article's about the subject and thinks he can put his personal feeling aside and be objective. I have not seen a single edit by Squeakbox that you can say is neutral. Fighting for Justice 08:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism

Hi there, I believe SqueakBox is quite keen to keep the mediation off-wiki, so would you be prepared to do it on IRC or the MedCom's own wiki? It's entirely your choice so please don't think I'm forcing you into anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Issues

I am contacting all those involved in the mediation @ Pro-pedophile activism who seem to have missed one or both of these issues. Hopefully, with more editors voicing their opinions, we can approach consensus on these taxing questions.

The Blocking of A.Z:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A.Z.

Merger for Adult-child sex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adult-child_sex#Merge

85.10.140.167 08:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes

Im so sorry!! I reverted a vandals edit seconds after you made your edit, so i accidently reverted your edit as well. You can redo your edit, just please edit like normal. Dont revert it because then i'll have to remove the bit of spam that the IP address added again. dposse 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]