User talk:Leucosticte/Archive 1

Welcome
I like your train of thought for Category:GoalAbandoned. Warmest regards, -- Hoof Hearted • talk2HH 14:10, 12 September 2012 (PDT)

Very excited to see your work on the InterWikiMap!! Something I have dreamed of for over a decade and always hoped WikiIndex could be a part of. Best, MarkDilley
 * Ah, I did not see till now that real names are preferred here. Well, if there's a way to rename and merge back into User:Nathan Larson, go ahead. I don't really care one way or the other. Leucosticte (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2012 (PST)
 * currently we do not have the change username extension, maybe in the future - the situation right now is fine :-)  MarkDilley

The rename user extension would be a much better way to fix this - that way gives the propper attribution to a real name when previously registered under a psudonym Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 11:45, 22 November 2012 (PST)

Templates and bots
Do you have any advanced template skills? And the same question regarding bot accounts? If so, I have some thoughts for you!! ;-/ Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 11:45, 22 November 2012 (PST)
 * Yes to both of those. My main issue with bots, though, is that I need to find a way to keep them running 24/7. Webhosts eventually kill your processes, and then your bots go down until you restart them. Leucosticte (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2012 (PST)
 * Cool! --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 07:45, 24 November 2012 (PST)

Templates
Can you look at Template:Size please. When used with a value for a page count size, it renders whitespace above the template, yet when used with no value (so that it renders 'UnknownSize') - there is no whitespace above it. Can you fix that? --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • Admin • talk2HH 07:45, 24 November 2012 (PST)
 * Yay !!!! Thanks, such a simple tweak that I'd been trying to fix for ages! :)  --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 09:29, 24 November 2012 (PST)

Template:Wiki
Hi Nathan, thanks again for your great work here! How are you with '#if' commands in templates? I'm useless with them, so I'd appreciate your help :) In template:Wiki, I tried to auto include a new category - basically, if a wiki has a WikiNode (and it has the WikiNode url in the template), I'd like to auto-include it into Category:Wikis with a WikiNode.  I tried with this edit - but it was an epic fail, as it also auto-categorised wikis having 'No' WikiNode.  I'm guessing (clutching at straws!) that maybe it needs an '#else' command too.  Can you sort this if possible please?  Best regards, --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 10:41, 28 November 2012 (PST)
 * There's probably a more elegant and efficient way it could have been done, but it seems to work now. Leucosticte (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2012 (PST)
 * Thanks, as long as it works, all is good!
 * BTW, what would your opinion be of adding an 'about' parameter to the template, say immediately above or below the WikiNode field? I'm aware this was discussed previously, (and we both weighed in) but the crux of the discussion was an either/or scenario.  I think we ought to have both.  WikiNodes havn't really taken off, but then there are may wikis who also havn't filled in their 'about'.  By including both, we at least stand a better chance of recording the fundamental detail of individual wikis.  Did you want to be bold and add that parameter?  --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 03:39, 29 November 2012 (PST)

Bot
Is WikiIndex not small enough not to worry about webhost problems? Or do you mean the hosts of non-WikiIndex sites?

Is it possible for a bot to scan all URLs (for articles here on WikiIndex) for *.wikia.com - and then change the wiki engine field in the wiki template from MediaWiki to Wikia? I may have some more ideas too. . . :) --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 07:45, 24 November 2012 (PST)
 * I can probably do that. It might take me awhile to get around to it, though; I've got some other stuff on my plate. Feel free to throw more ideas out there, however. Leucosticte (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2012 (PST)
 * OK - I'll try to recall what I previously thought of . . . my memory isn't great :( Did you want to create a new account for your Bot?  --Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 09:29, 24 November 2012 (PST)
 * Sure. It's LeucosticteBot. Leucosticte (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2012 (PST)

Bot problem ???
Hi Nathan, thanks for setting up your bot :) It would appear there is a problem with it, though . . . its actions are appearing in the Special:RecentChanges - even when the 'Hide bots' option is selected.  Perhaps you can look into this please (or have you already fixed this?).  Best regards, Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin • talk2HH 00:35, 27 November 2012 (PST)
 * WORKSFORME. I.e., it hides the bot edits by default, except for those bot edits that were made before the bot flag was added. Leucosticte (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2012 (PST)

Pedophile!!
I hope they ban you at this site!! --94.242.205.2 19:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It would just be further confirmation that we truly are still in Phase I. Leucosticte (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are a real sicko, aren't you? A list of the wiki's you have been altering: Nathania, ChildWiki, BoyWiki, AVEN Wiki, SuicideWiki, Evil-Unveiled, ensis wiki, PolyWiki (PolyWiki.org), Youth Rights Network (??), ASH, Nudist History Wiki and the Rationalwikiwiki (???). Many of these pages you have altered several times over the last few months and your perversions seems to mainly focus on pedophilia, deranged sexual behaviour and suicide. I hope that someone will kick you out of this wiki, before you continue promoting sick perversions. --94.102.49.175 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any kind of social progress has to begin with someone putting forth a dissident view that the majority of people won't immediately like. There's no way to censor bad dissident opinions without also risking censoring good dissident opinions, so tolerance is called for. You should read Brandeis' concurrence in Whitney v. California; you might find it enlightening. Specifically, he writes, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
 * There is no such thing as social progress, the concept only exist in the minds of leftwing religious fanatics like yourself. Neither is there such a things as your definition of tolerance, because if tolerance is allowing pedophiles like you to maintain a system of child-abuse, then the concept of tolerance would be evil and destructive and good things are not evil and destructive. --173.254.216.69 21:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole point of getting away from Wikipedia, and using other wikis, is that we don't have to deal with their content restrictions; that purpose is defeated if we then impose those same restrictions throughout the rest of the wikisphere. WikiIndex is supposed to be comprehensive, and ceases to be so if it doesn't document the whole wikisphere. Documenting something doesn't imply agreement with it, so there's no need for censorship; hopefully someday Wikipedia will realize that as well. Leucosticte (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not attacking the policies of this Wiki, I am attack YOU, YOU are clearly a sicko and you should not be allowed to twist the definitions of wiki's that focus of perversion. --173.254.216.69 21:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's notoriously difficult to get people to agree on what terminology to apply to sexual attractions and sexual practices involving children. Even the people who support those attractions and practices can't always agree on what terminology to use. It's not just a problem solely on this wiki. Others just want to lump all those concepts into the categories of "pedophilia" and "child sexual abuse," but pedophilia is a clinical term with precise diagnostic criteria, and I prefer to make a distinction between "child sexual assault" and non-assaultive activities, rather than using vague, subjective concepts such as "abuse".


 * By the way, even the people who are opposed to intergenerational sex still seem open to the idea that children can consent to sex, at least with each other; RationalWiki, for instance, accepts the definition of child sexual abuse "as any sexual activity performed by an adult on a child or any unwanted or inappropriate sexual behavior by another child." That seems to imply that it's okay for kids to engage in sexual activity with one another as long it's wanted and appropriate, although they've left unstated what would be "inappropriate" and what wouldn't. That's probably because they don't want to address the issue, since it would lead to a lot of drama and possibly expose inconsistencies in their thinking. If they were to make more specific assertions, someone might ask for a rationale; this way, they avoid such inconvenient questions.


 * There's not really any way to win, because if I support a certain view, you call me a sicko, but if I don't support that view, then I'm not being true to my own beliefs, and then my conscience bothers me. I'd rather displease you than displease myself, because I have to live with myself, while you're more easily dismissed. Leucosticte (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no issue nor any difficulty of defining a concept. You see, it's very simple. You are an evil person, following an evil ideology, I am not. Therefor I have right to decide what is proper and you do not. --185.12.7.248 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Question
Do you know who I am? --37.130.227.133 00:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I usually don't speculate about such things, because it's very easy to inadvertently make a false accusation of who an anon or suspected sockpuppet might be. Leucosticte (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am the avatar of all the victims you have allowed to suffer through direct or indirect action. I am SATAN himself and I will punish you in the afterlife, for all your dirty little sins. I am giving you the commandment to finally off yourself and return back to the painless state you came from. Do it, it will be painless, I promise you !! --37.221.162.226 00:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to punish me in the afterlife, then how will I return to a painless state? Leucosticte (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about it, all will be revealed when you off yourself. --SATAN
 * "You'll find out when you die" sounds similar to something Christians would say. How do I know you're not actually God trying to deceive me by appearing in the guise of Satan? Leucosticte (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll give you a snippet of infernal knowledge, but just a snippet - imagine complete freedom, imagine all knowledge you want, imagine real power, but you must make the step and off yourself, because suicide is the quickest trip to hell, isn't it? --SATAN
 * Not necessarily. What if life is a test of our ability to use reason to overcome instinct, and only those who commit suicide are deemed worthy of heaven? Then I would be eternally separated from Your Unholiness. Is that what this is really about? You're trying to get rid of me, perhaps. Leucosticte (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Where to troll next
I am tired of this wiki, lets go and try to get holocaust denial shit on DuWiki. I will hear about you on skype.
 * If you want to stay on this wiki that's you diffy, but me, Jeff and Angelina are going to go to DuWik.
 * Have fun. Leucosticte (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jeroen, sie Sind ein autist, leck mich am Arse! Ich will Spass haben.

blanked the community talk section where you were being trolled
I blanked that section. You may enjoy engaging with trolls, but does the rest of this community want that there? Don't forget where you are! By debating with them in that forum, you amplify the noise they make. --Abd (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User talk:82.94.251.227. That comment was made on my Talk page, and I blanked it because there is no value in engagement with anonymous trolls, vandals, and fanatics, who have a declared disruptive agenda. Responding there was a very bad idea, though it's better than the community talk page.


 * I highly recommend you not use WikiIndex at all as a place to engage and debate with trolls and/or fanatics. It will not turn out well for you if you do. There are some real issues that may be of importance to this wiki, but they will not be addressed through encouraging flame wars with anonymous editors. Stop it.


 * I also highly recommend that you remove excessive personal detail and commentary on your sites that is not appropriate for a general wiki index. --Abd (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice that the talk page was deleted. Leucosticte, you just created a small piece of work for an administrator. That's collateral damage. It's a major sign that you should stop. Stop. --Abd (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to have a one-sided flame war? I didn't flame anyone.


 * What's excessive? Ideally, every page on this wiki should be like the Meta-Wiki, ChildWiki, Nathania, etc. pages, only more so. People want to know all there is to know about the wikis and the background behind everything that goes on at those wikis. It just happens that not enough people from those various wikis have showed up to devote the necessary effort to thorough documentation. More information is better than less.


 * There's a story behind every wiki, and all too often we're left wondering what that story might be. E.g., what's the story behind the Jeffrey J. Jensen wiki? Who knows. We'll never know, unless he gets narcissistic enough to come over here and tell us. So, narcissism is our friend.


 * Conversations with trolls are okay. If you make the effort to treat them with respect, then they can't claim that you didn't. The result is that the drama ends sooner rather than later. If you go straight to RBI, rather than trying to turn it into a BRD, then you run the risk someone will object, which will merely prolong matters and make a bad situation worse.


 * Dealing with trolls takes patience; of course, those lacking patience, who have the power to do so, and don't think it'll result in too many bad consequences (e.g. good users leaving) can just ban people and say "The matter's closed." I guess it's just a matter of preference and personal style.


 * Sooner or later, the impatience usually causes problems. It can create a sort of debt, kind of like technical debt, in which interest payments have to be paid because the problem wasn't thoroughly dealt with to begin with. RBI is a lazy solution, kind of like lock down.


 * Also, sometimes the trolls have a point. Code of Virginia § 18.2-61 does describe sex with a person under 13 as rape (see § 18.2-67.10 for general definitions). So, going by such definitions, some of the activities that boylovers would consider expressions of boylove would be technically considered rape. However, holding hands, playing with model airplanes together, and many other nonsexual activities could also be expressions of boylove, or as part of a relationship in which boylove is manifested, and those would not be considered rape. So, this is why it would be simplistic to say that BoyWiki is devoted to advocacy of boyrape.


 * Also, any content saying that BoyWiki supports or condones rape should also say that there's only one kind of rape that they condone or support, viz. the kind in which the fact that one party is a child under age 13 is the sole element that makes it rape. BoyWiki would oppose the kinds of rape that are against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or that are through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness.


 * Some people will argue, "Who cares about these distinctions; rape is rape". There are some who care. I care. Leucosticte (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * L., you can wikilawyer yourself into complacence, into "I'm right," and you have done this many times, and somehow seem to blame the poor outcomes on everyone else. Yes, it is quite possible for a skillful troll to create a one-sided flame war.
 * All you have to do is say what you know will cause the other person to come unglued.
 * There is legitimate work you have done here. There is also excess and inappropriate work. The former can be defended. There may well be a place for "stories about wikis," but be careful. I wouldn't put it at the top level of an index page. As to your own wikis, you can create those pages there, and you can create a link here to the story of the wiki.
 * I just reverted Sophie Wilder's insanity on Brongersma. Wilder is a declared wikiterrorist, violently angry, and has been for years. (I'd be seriously afraid of allowing her to be around my children.) She lies about you and others. You can't engage such people in rational debate, you ought to know that by now.
 * Having said that, your "child liberation advocate who killed himself" was an invitation to someone like her. "Child liberation" would seem to be your own political slant.
 * I replaced that back and forth with the Wikipedia lede, which is (1) reasonably neutral, and (2) avoids the impression that one would get that Brongersma was that young man in the photo who killed himself because his life was some sexual disaster. In fact, he was 88 years old and in poor health, and used voluntary euthanasia with physician assistance. He'd lived a rather full and successful life, quite contrary to stereotypes that might be asserted. Other than what I just read, I know little about him, but he was not convicted of "fucking kids." From the article, the boy was 17; the age of consent was then 21. It was lowered to 16, largely from Brongersma's efforts, apparently.
 * Sophie is crazy. Her favorite edit summary seems to be something like "fuck off and die." That was her block log annotation when she blocked you on RatWiki. --Abd (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another reason to be wary of letting pedophobes be around your kids is that they may have some self-loathing hatred going on. I call it the Colonel Fitts Syndrome after the character from American Beauty. He'll go around saying "I'd rather you were dead than be a fuckin' faggot" and meanwhile he wants to do the exact thing he criticizes someone else for, and will actually try to do it if he thinks he can get away with it.


 * In prison, some of the worst child molestors were people who went around telling other people, "Let me see your paperwork. What are you, a chomo?!" Their pointing the finger at others distracted attention from themselves, and usually it took a long time before anyone did some research and found out what the true story was concerning their charges. People like me who go around using our real names and letting everyone know our opinions, desires, etc. are probably the least likely to actually touch children sexually, because we already decided a long time ago to prioritize freedom to be an activist over freedom to engage in illegal activities. It would, after all, be much easier to break the law if one kept a low profile; but it's harder to be an activist that way.


 * The irony about this terminology, by the way, is that once you win the political battle, then the terminology changes. E.g., gay sex was once considered perverted behavior, so people who wanted to legalize it were considered to be trying to legalize perverted behavior. Now, though, no one in the mainstream speaks of it as the fight to legalize perverted behavior. We call it the fight against discrimination, or for sexual freedom, or something of that nature.


 * It would be the same way with this; right now, people would call it a fight to legalize childrape or child sexual abuse. If that fight were to win, it would then be called the fight for child sexual liberation. Would it have been appropriate for a wiki to have said about gay rights activists, back in the 1950s, that they were trying to legalize perverted behavior, simply because that was what the mainstream looked at it as? Would an "unbiased" encyclopedia seeking to have a neutral point of view use that terminology in such a political climate? I guess, but the notable minority views should still be afforded their due weight, and their objections to the terminology should be noted. Leucosticte (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nathan, you are creating an impression in this bit of rambling that you are a pedophile. You are not a pedophile, you know that. You aren't even close to a pedophile. I know exactly why you do this. You are correct in this: it should not matter if you are a pedophile or not. Pedophilia is not a crime. Certain sexual acts are crimes under certain conditions.
 * What some are calling "rape" was routinely called, and is still called, "statutory rape." That is, it is considered rape under a theory that consent is impossible. I haven't read the statutes, but I'd bet they don't mention "rape." In popular language, "rape" implies force. There are varieties of rape that are not statutory, i.e, they can apply to adult "victims," and the common thread is lack of consent. (Technically, under these laws, Lot's daughters raped him. They would plead survival necessity.)
 * Consent is a term with an ordinary meaning, again, and the fanatics on this play with the meanings. They want the opprobrium of the ordinary meanings, and they want to couple this with images of the innocence and helplessness of "children." they are not interested in distinctions and differences, actual fact.
 * What Brongersma did was statutory rape, but apparently not forcible or without consent. Was the 17-year-old capable of giving consent? Legally, no. However, in most jurisdictions, 17-year-olds can marry. Marriage requires consent. So can they consent or not? In some places, the consent of the parents is involved. At some ages, the consent of a judge is required, i.e, the ordinary marriageable age requirement can be set aside if conditions warrant it. That takes judgment about specifics. Generally, the judgment will be based on the best interests of all involved, and, hopefully, not on hysteria and rigid categorization.
 * Under the old tribal law, the capacity to consent to marriage for girls was assumed with sexual maturity, as marked by menarch. Sex outside of marriage was an offense against the tribe. I've written at length about this elsewhere, it comes up when certain religious fanatics claim that Muhammad was a "pedophile," which is preposterous, on the face and on the facts. But the thinking is similar to that of the fanatics attacking you, Leucosticte.
 * Fanatics, almost by definition, don't care about facts. They care about knee-jerk impressions, especially violent ones, and they will claim that anyone who does not share that impression is one of "them," an "enemy" of children and Good People everywhere.
 * Hence I was told, on "RationalWiki" to "go rape your kids." And wikiadmin did not care. So much for "child protection." This is not about protecting children, it is about hatred and terrorism. We sometimes forget that terrorists think they are justified.
 * WikiIndex is simply not the place for this debate. It's bad enough here on your User talk page. --Abd (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WikiIndex is a place for the same kinds of debates about semantics, NPOV, etc. that crop up on almost every wiki that has any kind of content that people would have a tendency to argue about. As for the "rape" terminology, I linked to a statute above that uses the word "rape" for sex with a person under 13.


 * The reason I say I'm not a pedophile is that (1) I don't have recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger) and (2) I haven't acted on these urges, and the sexual urges or fantasies don't cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. Therefore, I don't meet the criteria. It's more my viewpoints and/or people's reactions to them that cause interpersonal difficulty. That's not to say that I don't appreciate the beauty of children, or that I never felt any attraction to them. But it's very rare that I find myself getting aroused by those kinds of thoughts or fantasies. The prepubescent age range just isn't my primary age of attraction, but also I seem to be more able than in the past to look at provocative images with clinical detachment, or the kind of relatively dispassionate aesthetic appreciation you might have at an art gallery.


 * Anyway, having those kinds of thoughts is a pretty common experience. People who lack inhibitions about such things experiment with a lot of different possible sexual configurations. It's kinda like how a lot of people have at some point or another had a gay fantasy, or thought about doing something gay, or maybe even messed around. It doesn't make them gay, if that's not their primary attraction. They were just being adventurous, even if it was only in their own minds.


 * People assume that people who have sexual fantasies about kids want to legalize adult-child sex so that they can fulfil those fantasies in real life. It could also be that people who favor that kind of sexual liberalization are less inhibited about their sexual fantasies and feel less ashamed about them, so they're more open to talking about them. Of course, those sexual liberals also come under attack a lot from people who accuse them of being pedophiles, so the topic ends up arising that way. If people minded their own business, rather than hurling around accusations concerning other people's fantasies, then those fantasies wouldn't come up in conversation so much.


 * But yeah, we're kinda straying off the topic of how to improve WikiIndex articles. Strange that Sophie just happened to arrive at the same time that these anon trolls did; I wonder what that was about. Maybe we got slashdotted somewhere. 4chan perhaps? It's hard to say. At any rate, the vandals did pretty much destroy most of ChildWiki's reason for being by forcing it off of the OpenEdit model. Leucosticte (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. Registered accounts are more anonymous than IP. They can be created through an unidentified open proxy. Generally, they require an email address. That makes them sightly more cumbersome, but the email address can be temporary. The idea is to make it more expensive to vandalize, so that it is less work for the administrator than it is for the vandal. Sophie is active on RatWiki, and so are a lot of highly disruptive users. I have listed the IPs in a version of User:Abd/Open proxy events/2014-03, and intend to see what I can find, but it appears they are all open proxies, including that first threat on Sophie's talk to use TOR nodes. RatWiki attracts those kinds of users. There are some signs that the IP user (users?) is "Christian conservative." Which would be pretty funny. Strange bedfellows.
 * I never vandalized Wikipedia, but for a short time I did IP edit under ban. These were not harassing edits, and mostly were reverted and the IP blocked solely because of who I was -- and I was self-identifying. At a certain point, and not using open proxies, the increasing range blocks made it more cumbersome. If I'd cared seriously about what I was doing, I could easily have continued, but the point is that it does become more work. Someone like Scibaby will put that work in. It's pretty stupid to antagonize users without a clear necessity.
 * CW can expect vandalism, it would be utterly naive not to expect it. Nathan, I do not support what you are doing there. That site is misleading, on the face. It's not just about sex. It is about marketing a complex and isolated (and isolating) political agenda, and a dangerous agenda to boot, and appearing, at least, to market it to children. --Abd (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I installed mw:Extension:TorBlock. I would like to get a setup in place that will make it possible to go back to OpenEdit, or something close to it. This is a new experience for me; I've never had to deal with vandal attacks of this severity before. And it could have been a lot worse!

Christian fundamentalists and radical feminists ironically share a lot of the same agenda, when it comes to stigmatizing and suppressing sexuality. Women who can't get any attention because they're too ugly will often get jealous at those who can, and want to shut them down. The RadFem agenda is largely what's responsible for the age of consent laws being what they are; it was another opportunity to keep people from having sex. When carried to its logical conclusion, it's almost a human extinctionist philosophy. They would demand that women have superiority/supremacy in all respects (money, etc.) before sex could be considered non-exploitative. This, of course, would deprive the good-looking but poverty-stricken social climber of opportunities; but that's the point. These RadFems want to make everyone else as miserable as they are.

I don't see what is complex, isolated, isolating, and dangerous about ChildWiki's agenda. Liberty, justice, tolerance, social equality and personal responsibility are simple and beneficial ideals that bring people together for voluntarily cooperative relationships. For children to be truly free, they need the whole package of rights and responsibilities that adults currently have. Also, the freedom of adults depends on children being free too, because the government and others are always using child protection as an excuse to restrict adults' freedom as well. For example, restaurants have to card people who aren't under 21, just to make sure they're not selling alcohol to anyone underage. Plus parents get stuck with albatrosses they don't want sometimes. Leucosticte (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on offending a boatload of people with no necessity, by making a gross oversimplification of a complex problem, blaming it on "RadFems."
 * Radicals of all kinds, by which I mean those who stray far from basic human agreeableness and reserve, are indeed similar. But then pinning problems on one side of a controversy is, well, radical. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitions of rape
is a generic statutory definition of rape. It includes some age considerations, but is not about statutory rape as such. The core:


 * ''A. If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim, he or she shall be guilty of rape.

Where this can apply to statutory rape is, first, in through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness. However, this is a very general provision. It applies to adult "complaining witnesses" as well as children. Then there is "under age 13." That's statutory rape, i.e., there is a presumption of incapacity, apparently.

Statutes are often written to create special usages of language. The terms in a statute do not necessarily mean what they mean in common language, and this can make law very difficult to read and understand, it's very poor practice, but it's quite common. One might think that "complaining witness" might mean a "witness who complains." Nope.


 * ''1. "Complaining witness" means the person alleged to have been subjected to rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, marital sexual assault, aggravated sexual battery, or sexual battery.

Never mind that this is a bit circular. What is "statutory rape" here -- defined by status of the "victim," is child under 13. Now, the way the statute is worded, if a 15 year old girl has sexual contact with a boy of 12, life sentence. Or boy, girl. That seems a tad risky, eh? I.e., risking major life damage for all involved because of the law. It's the punitive model, which is often lousy at preventing harm, because Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition. Now, it used to be in various places, and may still be, that the age involved is not 13, it's 18. Even riskier.

As you know, discussing this is difficult. I'm pointing to an "edge case." People don't think about the edges, they think about the worst case. And then toss the edges in with the worst.

As worded, the statute describes and makes highly illegal the normal behavior of parents with small children. However, any attempt to apply it in that way would meet with a firestorm of protest, and nobody bothers to amend the law. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pennsylvania has similar language, "A person commits the offense of rape of a child, a felony of the first degree, when the person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant who is less than 13 years of age." But what's more important, perhaps, is federal law, concerning people under 12 and between 12 and 16. There's a rather strange section about sexual "contact" that distinguishes it from sexual "acts". So basically we're talking about ass-grabbing here. Point being, the feds don't call it rape; they call it sexual abuse.


 * The UCMJ says "Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) commits a sexual act upon a child who has not attained the age of 12 years . . . is guilty of rape of a child and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." Leucosticte (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your wikis here
Leucosticte, you are placing excessive detail on your wikis here, which invites debate that is likely inappropriate for WikiIndex. Please reduce the text on your wikis to what is appropriate for an index that describes wikis, not every detail of threats or DDOS attack, vandalism, etc., breathless recentism. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the pages just had to be under 12,000 characters? 4chan or 4chan imposters were the ones who put the stuff about DDOS attacks. Anyway, all that information was true, and what else was the article going to include? Can you write a better one? The WikiIndex article on Libertapedia, for instance, says way less than the RationalWiki article on Libertapedia. Leucosticte (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is a joke site for pseudoskeptics, it is intrinsically a debate site. By default, here, users may list their own wikis. Don't abuse that freedom, or it is likely to be lost. Now, I'm at a variety show at my daughter's UnSchool. Self-expressed teens. Free teens, living a liberated life. You have no clue. --Abd (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You had something else here that you removed (accidentally?). This is my response to that (edit conflict).


 * They are free to live in Massachusetts. They are not "not free" because you propose things that would have consequences. Especially if they do not want to do those things. Am I free to step in front of a bus? (Answer: Yes. Proof: I could do it, and people sometimes do. But there are consequences.)
 * You pointed to "emancipation." I have no idea if these kids were emancipated or not, nor do I know the local law on emancipation. When I said that they were free, I said that because they act like they are free. It was a Variety show, mostly rock music. There was a drummer, a young woman, she looked like she might be pushing 18. Pink hair, torn hose, wearing exactly what she wanted to wear. Playing that drum set with professional quality. Her presence was not that of a "child." My daughter told me she's 13, almost 14.
 * These kids are "educationally emancipated." They are all in control of their own education. Legally, they are "home schooled." But that can bring up images of religious home-schoolers. When we started to consider this program for my daughter, she said, "Dad, does that mean I'll have to listen to you all day? If so, Bad Idea." But it doesn't mean that, at all. It means she is in charge of her own learning. I'm legally obligated to monitor it, she is not "legally emancipated," nor could she be, she's 12.
 * In Massachusetts, this is a coverage of the emancipation laws. One might notice that it is mostly about the obligation of parents to provide support. Obligations = rights. There are many references to "school." The law states that children up to the age of 16 must be in school. Legally, "home school" is school. The difference is that the "schooling" is entirely up to us. Since my daughter is the subject of a DSS case, it was essential that we submit an "educational plan" to the local Superintendent of Schools, for approval (DSS was making noises like she might be removed from my custody for "educational neglect"). So I asked her what she wanted to do. I made some suggestions, some of which she rejected, and some of which she accepted. I wrote it ou t, and submitted it. It was immediately approved. The organization I was working with told me that the very nice letter was a form letter. It was sent the same day as my plan was received. I.e., it looks like children and parents are very restricted and not free, but, in fact, both are very free. Just consider the needs of the state (for an educated citizenry, this is very old), and the needs of the bureaucrats (they need paper on file, or they will Look Bad, never make a bureaucrat Look Bad, they will fight you tooth and claw, you ought to know this, Leucosticte), and you can basically do what you want.
 * If course, if she were wandering the streets, getting into trouble, we'd both be in trouble. But that ought to do without saying. She's not. She is still not willing to take the bus by herself, for example. She doesn't want to be alone more than for a few minutes. She can be alone, it's been tested. I got stuck in Boston one time, unexpectedly, and she was home alone for a day, while I spent the night in South Station. I was freezing and she was in pain from a neck injury. Nobody died. She texted me at about 2 AM: "Dad, I love you."
 * My first girls were babysitting by her age, but she has been raised differently.
 * L., life is different for children than you imagine, you have mostly your own experience to go on, what it was like for you. If I did the same, I'd also have a very warped view.
 * Those kids that we were watching are free, it's palpable. And what was remarkable was the density of freedom, that is, in a small program, maybe 65 kids, I saw, that day, at least five kids playing music, singing, performing, who were star quality. And many others who were supporting them, playing music with them, simply not so visible. Freedom is contagious.
 * My 12-year-old is one of the youngest there. She's in heaven, basically. She is with kids she can look up to, emulate, while still being herself, and she is amazing, all on her own. Yes, freedom is very important, especially to teenagers. It's important that this freedom not be an imposed thing. You are defining them as "not free" because of circumstances over which they have no control, but there are always circumstances. That's life. They are free because they choose how to handle the circumstances.
 * The first day my daughter was there, she walked down the street with other kids, to a local convenience store. A car drove by this group of teens, middle of the day, when kids are "supposed to be in school." Someone made a "rude gesture." The girls told my daughter, "Get used to it!" (The program does not restrict the kids. They can walk out at any time. All they say is "Don't lie. If you spent all day at the donut shop, talking with a friend, great! Your choice. Don't say you were at a class when you weren't.")
 * You might read the salon.com article School is a Prison. Reading that together with the laws on emancipation, we were all in prison. By comparison. There is still prohibited behavior. So what? Is that behavior essential to life? --Abd (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of the slippery slope, we have to beware of any incursions on our liberty. The first liberties lost may seem unimportant or irrelevant, but they lead to the loss of others. Also, some people will break the law and go to prison; and some of the people do that are very good people who I don't want to see go there. A lot of the people I write about on Nathania — Oberon, Wenzlick, Wheatley — fall in that category. There is no reason they need to be in prison. We lose their contributions, we lose the resources that are allocated to paying for their incarceration, and we lose our liberty. It's a lose-lose-lose. Leucosticte (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ChildWiki is not what you pretend it to be. Wikis are intentionally community activities, that's the whole point of wiki software. Rather, ChildWiki is your bliki, wherein you pretend to be a member of a community of children and child liberationists, including childlovers or pedophiles. You are neither. You are an outsider, a self-appointed pretend-advocate for people who, for the most part, don't want you serving that way. Neither children nor those who identify as childlovers will appreciate your posting of . The topics you present are all your own idiosyncratic views, not the views of a community.


 * You are doing what you have been doing for a long time, trolling, seeking to outrage. The site is satire, yes. But it is not openly satire, and, as such, it feeds prejudice, the very prejudice you pretend to be confronting. When you collected a page full of legal photos of children, selected to be provocative but legal, you knew how it would look. You were "having fun," it was a joke. However, that joke convinced a host of people that you were actually a pedophile. Indeed, that is a piece of your image of yourself, that you are standing for the rights of pedophiles (and other repressed or oppressed groups) by pretending to be one of them.


 * But you are not one of them, so all you can present are stereotypes. By presenting the stereotypes, and especially by your satirical presentations, you confirm them.


 * Consider Brongersma. He actually made a difference with his life. All you are doing, Nathan, is whipping a collection of ignorant fanatics into a froth. They will go after your wikis, but they will also go after anything that they think resembles them. Not just you.


 * Leucosticte, I can defend Brongersma, and the work he did, though I might not agree with all of it, and I can defend your right to have your wiki listed here, and your right to participate here and on other wikis nondisruptively. You were attacked here by indiscriminate fanatics and trolls. I can stand against that. However, there is the other side. Please consider what you can do to stop provoking these people, and stop creating an appearance that WikiIndex is biased in your favor. --Abd (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC).
 * This manual perpetuates stereotypes about both blacks and racists. So what? It's entertainment, although sometimes there's a grain of truth to it.


 * There are a lot of wikis that only have one user. BoyWiki is the same way. Libertapedia is the same way. So is SuicideWiki. But can you really call them one-member communities when there's the potential for other wikis to import the content, link to it, etc.? In that way, the wikisphere is interconnected and it's all one big community. ChildWiki borrowed from BoyWiki and NewgonWiki, and SuicideWiki borrowed from AshWiki. The editing isn't always synchronous; it's more like one is the successor to another, a lot of times.


 * In the case of BoyWiki, though, I could continue importing their content. The assistance would only go one way, since I'm borrowing their content but they're not borrowing mine, but ChildWiki is still functioning in some respects as a bigger community than just one person; it's as though Etenne (the most active user on BoyWiki) were also a ChildWikian. Then of course there's the content that pretty much everyone borrows from Wikipedia, which makes every Wikipedian who contributes to that borrowed content also a ChildWikian in a way. Leucosticte (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that you have no other users, nor that other users can't comment or create material there, but that the bulk of the content and traffic is from you. In the article, you speak about yourself as if you were the wiki. That is, you say that the wiki has a position. Wikis don't have positions, people do, and people may express positions through a wiki. In fact, the wiki, as you have described it, has no position. It is just that the only person expressing positions, the ones that are problematic, is you.


 * Newgon and BoyWiki material is different. As you know, the BoyWiki people did not trust you, and for good reason. Your material is, in fact, offensive to many or most of them. That is, you may copy some of their material, you might seem to be friendly to them, but you are not. You have your own agenda, which is quite different. Your agenda is to offend. It's "entertainment" for you.


 * Remember, I was a prison chaplain, working with an almost entirely black community. They told "nigger" jokes. If I had told a nigger joke, it would have been offensive. You have no understanding of community dynamics, because you became isolated and have been maintaining your isolation. You are not free, therefore you imagine others are not free. You define freedom, you create the state of not-free for yourself.


 * You can define freedom so that it's impossible. Or you can define it so that you are free. Which definition is more powerful? Because Nelson Mandela was free, he created freedom for millions. They could take away his physical liberty, but they could not take away his freedom. They did not take away your freedom, Leucosticte, because you were not free in the first place. You were trapped within a complex of rules and strictures that you created. Within that complex, you created ideals that you could not, in the end, support. The ideals were isolated from real life. --Abd (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In any case, you have an opportunity to fix the ChildWiki situation, to cease making it a cause of unnecessary disruption. Because of the nature of the causes you take up, there will be some level of disruption that is unavoidable, but that level can be defended. You are setting up situations, Leucosticte, where those who defend you will be attacked, and where the attacks will seem to be "whistle-blowing." The fanatics will be able to portray themselves as "defenders of ordinary decency." And protectors of children.


 * In a real battle, a soldier who starts shooting at the enemy without considering overall strategy and planning, basically undisciplined, will be prosecuted, possibly executed on the spot, because such a soldier is very dangerous. You have set yourself up as responsible to nobody but yourself, and willing to act in very public ways. You do damage to the cause of liberty, by demonstrating its limits, when there is no discipline. You postpone the maximization of liberty, by failing to exercise self-discipline, when liberty, to be practical, requires self-discipline.


 * To answer Bob Dylan, the birds are not free from the chains of the skyway. --Abd (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What they say is, if you're a white guy making jokes about blacks, then you better be funny. Otherwise, it comes off as racist. The BoyWiki people acted like they were on the verge of letting me in, based on all the material I'd shared with them (this was pre-ChildWiki) but then they never actually gave me the credentials. I've been in touch with some people from the GL community (I forget if they had any involvement in GirlWiki) and they thought ChildWiki was "quite good." But this was the early ChildWiki.


 * Just as the prominent spokespeople for the gay community don't represent all gays (in particular, they don't represent BLs, whom they've kicked out of the movement), the prominent spokespeople for the BL/GL/CL/etc. communities don't necessarily represent all people in those categories either. There's often a tendency to exclude those on the most radical wing of a movement, because the radicals' goals are very distant from being realized at any given moment, and not everyone in the movement agrees with the radicals. BoyWiki and NewgonWiki don't even have an article on incest, although they have a "historical document"; the fact they make sure to call it that suggests to me that they're trying to distance themselves somewhat from it. Yet, if they wanted to totally distance themselves from it, they wouldn't have it at all.


 * Suppose two people, one of whom is underage, wanted to have uncle-nephew incest. There are three taboos here to overcome: (1) the taboo against homosexuality, (2) the taboo against sex with children, and (3) the taboo against incest. NAMBLA was trying to fight two taboos at once, but incest would add yet another. I get the impression a lot of people in the pedo community would like to put the incest issue on the back burner for awhile, but there are others who are very gung-ho for pedophilic incest. Those people are generally not leaders in the movement.


 * I thought that the articles are supposed to be written in the third-person? If I edit an article on the wiki to support a certain stance, and no one reverts it (whether because there are no other users, or for some other reason), then that's the stance of the wiki, and it can be cited as such here. There's no rule against that.


 * Are these teens you mention emancipated? Do they have these rights? If not, they're not all that free, are they. This is what I suggest.


 * The kind of soldier who would be subject to court-martial is in a chain of command and therefore has to obey his superiors. If he were a soldier of fortune, or a sovereign conducting war independently, it might be a different matter. Leucosticte (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Leucosticte (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Potential conflict of interest arises whenever we write about ourselves in the third person. Attributed third person is better. Whatever is simple verifiable fact need not be attributed, but there is then an issue of notability. I.e., we may present a point of view with a collection of facts that have been cherry-picked.
 * I.e, a wiki may display various points of view. ChildWiki, in fact, is getting contributions from other points of view, so to speak. You are eliminating them. (As you should, by the way, at least what I've seen has not been something you could keep.) The nature of ChildWiki is such that points of view other than yours, or closely related ones, will not be contributed. L., you may invent endless reasons why you don't need to fix anything. That's okay, I'll fix it, and if I'm reverted, I don't really care, I won't be even arguably responsible. That is, "someone is wrong on the internet" is not much of a motivator any more. --Abd (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, fix away. The history page has the attributions, so I don't really see what the big deal is. Also, do you see any page on this wiki that uses attributed third-person? If one were to note that the wiki has only one active user at this time, then that would pretty much suffice to put the reader on notice that any doctrine the wiki has is approved by me, since I could have reverted whatever I wanted.


 * On the other hand, doesn't a wiki pretty much always speak for its owner, since he has veto power over everything? So in that respect, there's not much difference between, say, ChildWiki and Wikipedia, back when Jimbo was god-king. A lot of ChildWiki's doctrine, as put forth on the ChildWiki page here, came from Cathartes, aka Research Psychologist; but had I not approved of it, I could have made it go away. Leucosticte (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there are owners who wish the wiki to be an expression of a community, and who will intervene only to promote that goal. They will, if they are honest, disclose what "community" they are supporting. You make utterly preposterous statements, L., out of an intention to debate, a habit that has behind it a drive to be right, rather than to understand and find consensus. "Not much difference between ChildWiki and Wikipedia?" Sure, you qualified the statement, but the qualification was dependent upon an unstated assumption about Jimbo and you. I.e., that you are both promoting your own point of view. That point of view is unclear in both cases. Jimbo clearly, however, believed in consensus and believed that it would arise naturally. He did not factor for the influence of empowered factions, that's all. He imagined that the majority would sensibly allow minority factions to express due weight, based on the weight in the sources. He was utterly naive.
 * Nathan, this is useless. I don't see that you are going to do what I asked. So as I have time -- if I have time -- I will do what I suggested.
 * You will then be "free" to respond. How you respond will create, through interaction, what happens next. That's real freedom, L. Not the existence or non-existence of conditions. You are advocating an impossible freedom, or, more accurately, a freedom that many would be willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's probably time to move from the D to the B part of the BRD cycle. How am I supposed to let a community consensus arise that's independent of my viewpoint, if I'm the only community member? Still, Jimbo did intervene sometimes; e.g. he removed certain images and expressed disapproval of other stuff that happened. His lackeys, perhaps, acted in accordance with his expressed will. Leucosticte (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are the only community member, then cover the wiki here as if it is your bliki. If it is your bliki, your identity is important. Jimbo did act according to his own opinion, but it rapidly became irrelevant. Eventually, he lost his intrusive Founder tools everywhere but Wikipedia. Describing the administrative cabal, which he created, as his "lackeys" is far from accurate, though. He was shouted down more than once.
 * You often ask "how" to express an impossibility, as in "how am I supposed to ...." But it can easily be done. First of all, don't fill the wiki with detailed and thorough expressions of your own opinion when your opinions are so far removed from the mainstream that even extremists may stay away. Raise issues, invite participation, and back off until it arrives. And then don't pursue every debate to the bitter end. Choose a few.
 * You are lousy at this, L., which is why your wikis have so often flopped, in spite of becoming quite visible. You more or less keep doing the same thing over and over. --Abd (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they mostly flop because it's hard to start a wiki community outside of Wikipedia. Try it sometime. People are in the habit of reading websites rather than editing them; they may enjoy what they read but they seldom contribute. Even WikiIndex isn't all that active of a community in comparison to, say, RW or ED. The wikisphere just isn't all that vibrant these days. It doesn't help that Wikipedia, the core of the wikisphere, is in decline by a lot of measures. People learn how to edit wikis at Wikipedia; if newbies find it to be an unpleasant experience, they may not stick around long enough to pick up the skills that will be useful at other wikis.


 * But really, a large part of why I create wikis is to express my own viewpoints; wherever I go, people demand that I quit doing that, but it's not going to happen. Even if they all go away and it's just me writing, that's fine because putting my views out there was the primary goal; getting them to participate was only secondary. On Mises Wiki, an arrangement was made in which I would only editorialize in the Essay: namespace. That was curtailed even further, so that I would only editorialize in userspace. And in fact, now I've mostly quit editorializing over there completely; I'm more likely to post to Nathania these days. Despite all that, Mises Wiki has had trouble getting off the ground, despite there being a large community of ardent Misesian scholars, fans, etc. That would have been the case whether I'd participated there or not. Leucosticte (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there are owners who wish the wiki to be an expression of a community, and who will intervene only to promote that goal. They will, if they are honest, disclose what "community" they are supporting. You make utterly preposterous statements, L., out of an intention to debate, a habit that has behind it a drive to be right, rather than to understand and find consensus. "Not much difference between ChildWiki and Wikipedia?" Sure, you qualified the statement, but the qualification was dependent upon an unstated assumption about Jimbo and you. I.e., that you are both promoting your own point of view. That point of view is unclear in both cases. Jimbo clearly, however, believed in consensus and believed that it would arise naturally. He did not factor for the influence of empowered factions, that's all. He imagined that the majority would sensibly allow minority factions to express due weight, based on the weight in the sources. He was utterly naive.
 * Nathan, this is useless. I don't see that you are going to do what I asked. So as I have time -- if I have time -- I will do what I suggested.
 * You will then be "free" to respond. How you respond will create, through interaction, what happens next. That's real freedom, L. Not the existence or non-existence of conditions. You are advocating an impossible freedom, or, more accurately, a freedom that many would be willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As to attributed third person, I'm sure it's used, but you've lost the context. The context is material added to a wiki that is highly controversial, itself, and without looking extensively through contribution histories, I suspect that WikiIndex may never have encountered the level of controversy that you can and have generated. Yes, there are unattributed opinions in reviews of some wikis, I've seen them. They will stand out like a sore thumb to anyone familiar with encyclopedic standards, i.e., any Wikipedian. None of these were enough of an issue that I was exercised to address them. That's not so with many of your contributions here. You are clearly editing at least some wiki pages from a strong POV, you use language that someone neutral would not use. And that invites those with strongly opposed POVs to come here. For you, it was perhaps fortunate that those who showed up here were so disruptive; I've long suspected that this is planned on your part. I.e., if you can get those people to blatantly disrupt, to threaten you with what was threatened on RationalWiki, you can then garner sympathy and support. How's that working for you, L.?
 * I came here because you indicated there was such disruption. There was. However, my concern is always root causes. One must deal with blatant disruption first, but that is only a temporary solution. It is as if you recruited those trolls to come here. L., I've been, for some years now, proposing an ontology to you that assumes you are responsible for what happens to you, you are not a victim. That is an assumption, we call it a "stand," it is not a fact, and you always want to argue fact, but there are no "facts" here. There are interpretations, only. You are quite aware of the linguistic problem, because you confront it when it suits you: the fanatics call children "victims," when if the children actually consented the designation as "victim" is highly prejudicial. And I am not entering that debate, the whole can of worms about diminished capacity, yatta yatta. Maybe, maybe not. But the language chosen controls conclusions, readily. If there is no "victim," there is no harm. A victim is someone harmed, without choice.
 * Your constant provocations make it impossible to actually address the real issues. Those are difficult issues, and are difficult enough in civil conversation. When buttons are being pushed, so that participants are acting out of survival instinct (that is what causes the fanaticism), the cerebral cortex is highly limited in capacity. Essentially, it becomes a tool of survival, with a neurological system designed for emergency decision-making, i.e., fight or flight. Adrenalin is released, etc., etc. The brain becomes incapable of recognizing alternate understandings and possibilities, there is no time for that. --Abd (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of the edit conflict, your comments ended up getting duplicatively posted twice (see above). What's this stuff about being provocative? What did I say that was provocative, besides advocating having sex with one's children? Geez, people are so touchy about natural desires, bodily functions, and voluntary relationships. Leucosticte (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Very weird MediaWiki bug
User_talk:Elassint. I'd have said this was impossible, but, it happens. Some pages are not included in a category display when the user is not logged in. This only seems to happen with Category:Wiki Dutch. The category is applied through Template:Wiki, using "Dutch" in the language field. I give examples in the linked discussion. I can't see any difference, but the behavior is stable. Any clue? --Abd (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest upgrading to the latest version of MediaWiki as the first step in troubleshooting. Leucosticte (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that would make a difference, perhaps not. They are using MediaWiki 1.21. Looks like there is 1.21.6 and 1.22.3.
 * The problem here was fixed by a user logging out and using Purge (probably through a command in the browser URL). That fixed it for everyone. So IP users are all seeing a cache, it seems, that had not been updated, for weeks. I don't see that this problem was actually solved. Why weren't the indexes being updated more frequently? Why doesn't the index used by IP users get updated when a registered user looks at a category? Etc. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Research Psychologist
This user did not believe your claims that you are not a pedophile.. And then you create the page here on this user. L., that sucks. The user had already indicated a problem with ChildWiki, that you had imported so much material from Newgon and BoyWiki that "heat" would be drawn. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a DABF fail on your part. Leucosticte (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. I don't assume bad faith, if that's what DABF means (Don't Assume Bad Faith), rather I do assume complex motivations. You engaged in debate with this user on ChildWiki, who bailed from it. So you brought him up here. You have not explained your motivation, and your explanations tend to be, more or less, "Why not?" That is not an explanation. Other than truly random activity, no complex human behavior (and writing a wiki page is quite complex) arises from "Why not?" . And with much random activity, we still have our reasons for tossing the dice.


 * Nathan, you are refusing to see and acknowledge what you do. You've got a million reasons you have invented. But you do what you do, and what you assert as reasons are rarely on point, at all. They amount to excuses, not reasons. --Abd (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you find it hard to understand because you tend not to add a lot of mainspace content on any wiki you edit, so you can't relate. Sharing useful information by writing articles is just another activity by which people find meaning in life. Leucosticte (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or pass time. Most of the time, Nathan, what you are "sharing" is not useful information, except to you. You used to do otherwise. You are now moving into using WikiIndex for your own purposes. If the community accepts that, fine. It's up to the community. --Abd (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All of life is a passtime, is it not? We're just whiling away the hours till death, because everything's going to be destroyed in the end anyway. Isn't cruft what wikis do best? This just happens to be wikicruft as opposed to other kinds of cruft (e.g. bandcruft, gamecruft, etc.). Leucosticte (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WikiIndex: all the cruft anyone cared to add. I think you have WikiIndex confused with Wikia. Nathan, you would rather die than give up an argument. That leads you, out of survival necessity, into total betrayal of your own standards. You start to so badly represent reality that you might as well be lying. Noticing that there is a sort-of policy page that demolishes your argument, here, you question the claims there about BLP policy. You cite wikipedia:Wikipedia:Attack page, claiming:
 * ''Wikipedia's policy on attack pages says that if the content is unsourced, that's when it's bad. What if it's sourced? In the wikiworld, there's usually a diff to prove any assertion.
 * That radically misrepresents the WP policy page, which actually says:
 * ''An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to speedy deletion.
 * First of all, nothing is said about "bad." Rather, this is about what is to be speedy deleted or not. You are elsewhere claiming that motive doesn't matter, i.e., that your motive in creating biographical pages here is irrelevant. The policy talks about "exists primarily," which is actually an imputation of motive, or certainly of effect. "Primarily" clearly refers to motive. "Unsourced" is only mentioned in respect to "biographical material which is entirely negative in tone."
 * In the end, you would be correct that we cannot know, with certainty, the motives of people. However, there are motives that transparently appear. If a page appears to be an attack page, it can cause harm, regardless of the motive. If you create biographies here of people with whom you have conflict, or with whom you wish to debate -- and who may have deliberately withdrawn from debate, as with Research Psychologist -- you are creating harm, and without the redeeming necessity that Wikipedia has of requiring articles on notable people to exist. Essentially, if these page creations are allowed, you can then implicitly threaten people that if they don't debate with you -- as MZMcBride did not debate with your metawiki essay that you referenced in his article, or Nemo bis did not agree with your meta essay and considered it useless, that you will create an essay or "article" on them or their opinions on WikiIndex.
 * Nathan, if you do not restrain yourself, expect that you will be restrained. Don't think of this as a personal threat, it's not. I am limited in what I can and will do. Whom and what I represent is not so limited. I'm sure there are limits, I just don't know them.
 * Mark says, in that link I gave you, that it's okay to create pages devoted solely to constructive criticism, so I guess that's the final word. We have the green light to create attack pages, as long as there's a theoretical possibility that the person will use the information as helpful guidance in mending his ways. Leucosticte (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That was an off-hand comment about five years ago or more, not implemented. Basically, Nathan, it seems you will take whatever shred of evidence you can find to support your position. You won't be arguing with me, you will be arguing with siteadmin, I'm not in charge here, except of my own edits. You actually cited WP:Attack page to make it mean the opposite of what it means, completely missing the point of the WP policy. It was being suggested that WikiIndex follow Wikipedia BLP policy. --Abd (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I did cite the last part of WP:Attack and ignore the first part, that's true. Leucosticte (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You left out the part about attack. It's like libel laws. Intention to harm is fundamental to defamation and defamation is fundamental to libel. Factuality is only a protection under certain conditions, mostly establishing necessity. --Abd (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My page
Please don't alter my personal page, unless I gave you permission to do so. You probaly ment well, but still - first ask my permission. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Duly noted! (Sorry, meant to respond earlier, but got distracted) Leucosticte (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you want permission to improve my spelling? --Redgreenfourties (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Joke
After reading this of yours, I can now honestly say that I belief ChildWik is a satirical site. Clearly you are a major troll, to that I say congratulations. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. The "scriptural references" are hilarious. For those who might not recognize them, those are actual references, to Luke 11:7 and Mark 10:13. And a little thought on this would show how insane our society has become on these issues. Let me tell my own story: I was at a 12-step meeting, sharing about my life, and I told how my two children went to sleep, one with her head on one shoulder, one with her head on the other. These were adopted children, ages about 8 and 6 at the time, and "co-sleeping" is strongly encouraged for children with attachment issues. However, they had their own rooms, etc., but they just went to sleep this way, in their mother's bed, I'd been reading to them and she was away.
 * A woman at the meeting called the police to report me for child abuse. I was interviewed by an officer, who was apologetic. They have to investigate every report, no matter what. I told her that I fully supported the reporting laws, and we had quite an interesting conversation.
 * That anyone would come up with a sexual connotation for those scriptural passages is obviously quite modern. If someone now said those things, say a "spiritual teacher," people would be making claims of sexual abuse, ipso facto.
 * In most cultures on the planet, entire families live in one room, everyone sleeps in the same room. My older daughter of those two came to live with me at the beginning of November. I had only one room that was the living room of the apartment and my bedroom. I had two sofas there, my bed was behind one of them. So she slept on that sofa and I slept on my bed. Because the Department of Social Services was involved with this girl, they came to check out the living situation. They did not approve, though they did not consider this an emergency, they were more concerned about other issues. Nevertheless, I figured out how to set up a bed in another room, gave her the choice (she chose the big room!) and so we don't sleep in the same room any more. However, the two rooms adjoin, and she always wants the door open. So it is.
 * It has occurred that parents have had kids taken away because of "co-sleeping." In every case that I know of, the kids were returned to the family, it was some over-zealous social worker.
 * In any case, you can imagine what certain people think when they read that page. They are totally sucked in and believe it. My sense of Leucosticte is that this is exactly what he wants to happen. Part of his purpose is to humiliate the ignorant people. Yeah, but .... that ignorant mob with the tar and pitchforks has ... tar and pitchforks, and they will use them. How smart is a bear? Does one poke a bear "in a harmless way" to show how stupid the bear is?
 * People, when survival instincts are triggered, and that's what happens (it's quite complex, I'm saying it simply), are just as smart as bears, and they will tear you to shreds if threatened, while you protest that you were not "actually" threatening them.
 * Raise a fake gun toward the police, and you end up dead, quickly. In fact, raise a hammer at night with low visibility, you can be just as dead. I was questioned by the police for using a starter pistol (it fired blanks, basically a very loud cap pistol), and they told me a story about a kid who was vandalizing a school, had a hammer, and who was shot and killed when he raised his hand with the hammer instead of dropping it immediately. I must have been about 15. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Co-sleeping is often encouraged by the kids too; when I was younger (I'm not sure what age; I'm thinking five-ish, maybe a little younger?), I always tried to sleep next to, or cuddle with, my parents. For one thing, monsters, nightmares, etc. were a constant worry, and I felt safer with my parents by my side. My mom was okay with it, but eventually my dad stopped allowing it. Eventually they got me a smurf night light, and assured me that the smurf would keep the monsters away. Sure enough, it did.


 * I think a lot of parents let their kids sleep next to them, because they know it makes them happier, but they don't talk about it with the whole world, or put photos of it on Facebook, lest they seem weird. Leucosticte (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A site can have some satirical content without being a satirical site. I'm sure that a lot of major newspapers occasionally host a satirical column by some editorialist; that doesn't make those newspapers the equivalent of . However, unless the whole site is going to be satirical, I think it's appropriate to label satire as such, or at least put it in the right place (e.g. Miscellany space instead of mainspace, on a wiki; or in a newspaper, in the editorial section rather than the news section). Leucosticte (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, maybe you belief your site has a purpose that does not necessarily have anything to do with it expressed purpose. Maybe you think you are protecting freedom of speech, or waking people up and forcing them to think? --Redgreenfourties (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm promoting freedom of speech (and many other freedoms). Basically, there are two main ideas for how to protect children: (1) deprive them of liberty so that they don't harm themselves or enter into relationships in which someone will harm them; or (2) give them as much liberty as possible, so that they can use their resources (and resources others may voluntarily provide them with) to rescue themselves from poverty, aggression, and other problems, if they are able to do so. The whole website is devoted to promoting the second theory.


 * The idea is that if children (or their parents) make bad decisions, natural selection will take care of that. Also, individual families tend to know better than the government what is best for the child, because they're closer to the child; but the child himself knows best what he likes or doesn't like, and has the most reason to put effort into taking care of himself. So he should be free even of parents' interference, however well-intended, if he doesn't want it. Young people have to be left free to experiment with new ideas rather than being constrained by the old ones. People under a certain age tend to be more open to new ideas, so progress will often come from them. Leucosticte (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many things wrong with your thinking, I will awnser them point to point. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1: The two main ideas are not constrict freedom and deny freedom, since freedom is like a bar going from 0 to a 100, with the medium being true freedom and the extremes being false freedoms. for example, I belief Socialism and Libertarianism are both extremist ideologies and think any sensible economic policy must be in some way centered (ordoliberalism, christiandemocratism.. etc.).
 * 2: You talk about children as if they are sentient, but they are certainly not, again sentience is like a bar and children just like animals and people with an low I.Q. are not sentient, therefor the concept of freedom as something that is chosen, can not apply to children until a certain age and then just barely. I agree that when a kid becomes 8-10 they start to develop a more complex awarenss of there surroundings, but that's just of a process of become an adult, somewhere at the age of 25-30. Therefor talking about freedom when it concerns children, animals, retarded adults or computersimulation is ridiculous.
 * 3: You talk about natural selection, as if natural selection will support your viewpoint. Remember natural selection is A. blind and B. Our society is the product of natural selection. We have evolved to think that the kind of behaviour that you advocate is "bad", why? Because it is bad for a group to molest there children and natural selection choose against it.
 * 4: Again, children can not be open to new ideas, since children are not sentient, they can only have ideas and culture imposed upon them, no different from a dog, or a worker with special needs at a workshop. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There are different kinds of intelligence; young people have more of the. I don't consider myself to have been non-sentient when I was a child. Leucosticte (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a question, when you where a child lets say 4 years old and someone told you that in a hollow three in the garden, a gnome lives there and all the adults around you would agree with that one adult, then what would your believes be? --Redgreenfourties (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would probably believe them. However, I also remember that when I was a kid, and people started asking "Do you still believe in Santa Claus," the fact that they said "still" made me suspect that maybe Santa didn't exist. After all, people don't ask you, "Do you still believe that the sky is blue?" If they did, you might start to wonder what that's all about. Eventually I deduced that Santa couldn't be the one delivering all those presents; no one had to explicitly tell me.


 * Also, adults can be tricked too into falling for silly ideas. E.g., how many adults get involved in s? Or how many adults believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree? They give a bunch of money to the church because they think God will bless them.


 * Sometimes adults are tricked into sex, as well. A guy may act like he's open to the idea of marrying a woman, so that he can get her into bed. On the other hand, some women get into those relationships knowing exactly what is going on and what the guy's intention is; and I think some kids do too. Some kids are less naive than some adults. It's not implausible that an adult might say, "Let's do this because it feels good" and they do it and it does indeed feel good; and that's all that matters because nothing bad happens as a direct result. In such instances, why bother to involve the police; what is the point. No harm, no foul. Leucosticte (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fellow, you do realise you have just disproven your entire scheme. Let's think about this, adults belief things that are stupid or naive, therefor they can't always be trusted to be free and do the right thing. Now even IF children where less gullible then adults, or some adults, even then - freedom would not lead to an improvement in society, since it is easy for a child to belief in gnomes, it is easy for a child to repeat "this feels good" and you basically admitted that. The truth is - our conception of reality is flawed, therefor there can be no freedom. Freedom is an illusion, freedom is standing on a cord between fire and ice and below use hell and above use heaven. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If people aren't going to have freedom, then someone has to be in charge of making decisions for them. Who's to say that person will do any better of a job of running their lives than they would? He has every reason to want to look out for his own needs first, at their expense; but even if he's benevolent, he can have false beliefs too, or simply be ignorant.


 * Why are kids allowed to do anything? E.g. why are they allowed to play on the swings? They could hurt themselves, after all. But the reasoning is that if they're not allowed to have fun, even in risky ways, they'll be worse off than they otherwise would be. Some sex acts, such as oral sex, might be safer than playing on the swings.


 * Ideally, kids will be given opportunities for free play in which they structure the activities themselves, and thus get to be creative and learn a variety of new skills. A certain amount of creativity is possible with sex; and it could be incorporated into other games (e.g. ), as adults sometimes do. Children know how to look out for their own safety; I used to play with fire, for instance, when I was a kid, but after burning myself a few times learned to be careful with it.


 * By the way, what about Amber Kelley? She seems pretty sentient, does she not? What about ? Leucosticte (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I never argued that people can't have freedom, or that people should be guided by other people. I argued that freedom is an illusionary state build out of a middle path between two or more extremes. You have too understand that reality, truth, freedom and order stand between two or more extremes. You pick one extreme, I do not pick the other. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Our society is the product of natural selection. We have evolved to think that the kind of behaviour that you advocate is "bad", why? Because it is bad for a group to molest there children and natural selection choose against it." Societies have evolved to do a lot of different stuff. Slavery was once enforced by law (e.g. the ). It didn't make it good; that argument would be the. Leucosticte (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, slavery is bad and natural selection will select against it. Look at what the Altantic slavetrade did to America and its modern equivalent to Europe. Take for example the Turk, a creature without a real culture, he is a mixture between Greek and Turkmen, his culture is basically a mixture between Turkmen folklore, Islamic religion and leftovers of Byzantine adminstration. This ethnic group was tricked into coming to Europe by power-hungry Capitalists, crafty Christians and Socialist-fanatics, tricked into working for little pay, tricked into staying and tricked into slums and ghetto's, the modern Turk hates a society he does not understand and gets hatred back from a society that does not understand him, he spends his days peddling, praying, fucking and guzzling on the waterpipe, waiting for what will be an eventual end, when far-right forces take control over Europe, by using ethnic tensions and bad economy. So, I don't think slavery is good, I think it is absolutely digusting and should be abolished. I think slavery has brought nothing good to Europe this or the previous century. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
Because, you have been promoting sexual interaction with young children and though I am not sure if you yourself are serious about it, or are just expressing an extreme form of freedom of speech. I would just like to say that when you have a child with your girl/boy/transfriend, or however xhi likes to be called, please treat that child with love and care. Please for God's sake, don't force that child into anything before it reaches puberty. That includes sex. I am not saying this because I wish to oppress you, but because I care, as a human being, about your soul and it's place in the afterlife. I don't say this as a Catholic, Calvinist, Baptist, Jew or Lutheran, but simply as a religious person, who believes there is a moral authority that is simply good. Your friend --Redgreenfourties (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think most trauma from sexual interactions with children happen either when (1) the child says to stop, e.g. by crying, saying "no" or otherwise indicating displeasure, and the person continues anyway; or (2) the child is later told, and comes to believe, that he's been ruined, betrayed, etc. by what happened. It's not my intent to do anything that would be against a child's expressed wishes, aside from perhaps circumcision and other measures intended to preserve his well-being, and which can't be delayed until the age at which he can make a decision for himself; see my essay on the topic. Children can make sufficiently informed decisions about non-physically-harmful sexual acts from birth, though, because they understand innately whether a certain kind of touch is pleasurable or displeasurable and there is unlikely to be psychological traumatization in the very short interval between when the touch is initiated and when the child has an opportunity to object. Leucosticte (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Human sexuality is heavily conditioned socially. If you plan for you and your family to live outside of human society, you can ignore social conditions. Good luck finding a place to do that, because humans tend to take over the space, right? Given social conditions, and living in the United States, what you have written above, discovered years later under adverse conditions, could lead to the loss of custody of your children. Losing parents is generally traumatic for children.
 * The core of what you have written, though, "children can make sufficiently informed decisions about non-physically harmful sexual acts from birth," is something you made up, invented, and certainly not based on extensive interactions with small children. It's a sexual libertarian fantasy, and one that, acted out, would lead to heavy social sanction. Small children have practically no clue about sexuality, and generally treat whatever adults do with them as acceptable, if the adults are their caregivers. So any social worker seeing what you wrote will *assume* that you would test your theories, and that you are therefore a danger to children.
 * You do not know the full impact of sexual contact between children and adults, you imagine what it is, out of what you want to be true. I know of no culture that tolerates clear adult-child sex, that's probably a clue. But even if it were found that some did, that would not change the situation where you and your family live. --Abd (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what can I do. It's in my nature to defend liberty by posting commentary about my ideas, and to put those ideas into practice when I can and when there's even the slightest chance of getting away with it. I refuse to allow such an opportunity to pass by, merely because I was afraid of persecution being inflicted on me or others. I wrote about this at http://nathania.org/wiki/Miscellany:My_future


 * Oberon writes, with regard to my wife's comments, "Let me say it takes courage to say what Augustine said about her sexual encounter at nine. I have told Nate that at twelve I went looking for an older sexual partner and found one. I was the initiator of our sexual encounter and do not see myself as abused or damaged goods in any way. I wish someone would have taken me by the hand at ten or younger. I would not have wanted to be forced but if they had my concern in mind and wished to show me pleasure, I do not think I would have had a problem with discovering sex a few years earlier with someone more knowledgeable. Good for you, Augustine. I have always said 'Rape is rape' and 'Rape is wrong' but not all sex is rape. Sex is one of those things that everyone overreacts to. They get the idea that it is dirty or wrong when it is not, so it is easy to go alone with finger pointing and blaming when there should be no need to. Things will not change, I believe, until more people stand up and say 'I was not abused; all I had was sex and it was not wrong or dirty, no matter if I was nine, ten, twelve, or whatever age, as long as I wanted to do it.' I hope you gave someone else the courage to say the same. There should be a 'I was not abused' website for people to post their positive or at least non-negative sexual encounters with older people."


 * In order for people to speak out in the way he describes, there has to be an older person introducing them to these experiences. Who am I refrain from making that happen, with the consent of the persons involved? Far be it from me to get in the way of progress, or to be a bystander when I had the opportunity to intervene in a positive way. Leucosticte (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not in your "nature," Nathan, it's something you made up. And "getting away with it" betrays your attitude, and you have just acknowledged that you don't care who is harmed, which would include that child, and you value your ideas more than the child. You are not defending liberty, but license, or it's more complicated, you are setting yourself up for more "persecution," which, again you create. You are like someone who teases a bear, to see if they can "get away with it." Anyway, you've been informed, I'm out of here. --Abd (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you make a big deal about people's making things up? You made up everything you just wrote; it's called "composition". But it was in your nature to write it, so you did.


 * Sometimes not to act is more harmful than acting. At any rate, if the kid doesn't want something bad to happen, then he can (1) refrain from engaging in the illegal activity that will lead to the unpleasant consequences if discovered, or (2) keep his mouth shut when bad people ask about what happened. If the government doesn't want something bad to happen, then it can change the laws or refrain from enforcing them.


 * At any rate, if CPS takes away one or more kids, we can always have more. August's womb will probably be fertile for another couple of decades. Leucosticte (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)