This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was blocked a year ago for calling other contributors pedo-pushers. I've been editing Wikipedia since using other accounts without every attacking anyone (my ISP give a new IP every day). By now I've given up all articles related to paedophilia and my intentions are to continue to improve anatomy-related articles. I've already done so since I was blocked on hip, pelvis, knee, and many other articles.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Last time you stated that you were blocked for calling contributors who claimed there is no difference between 11 years old girls and adult women pedo-pushers. I point out that no editor on that talk page stated that there is no difference between 11-year-old girls and adult women. In a recent discussion on my talk page, I even make it clear that there is a physical difference between girls as young and 9-13 and adult women. And, yes, you have attacked as an IP address, just recently on my talk page in that very discussion. You are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia at all anyway. Because of all this, I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That remark and the edit summary that accompanied it are perfect examples of why you are blocked and will continue to be blocked until you show the slightest understanding of why you are blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raven, do you make a habit of lying? I would surely love to see you try to point out where I stated what you accuse me of stating above. In the recent discussion on my talk page about ephebophilia, I also state nothing like what you just accused me of stating. In fact, it is not even close. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By now I've accepted that claiming that being 9 15 makes you legal meat (as stated by Flyer22). I won't be editing anything related to it -- it is all up to the Wikipedia community. By now, all I want is being myself on Wikipedia, not baby-sitting this rambling bimbo. Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, when did I state that being 9-15 makes a person legal meat? Even my comments in the past on your talk page show the opposite of that.
Raven, I do not yet know what you last stated to me, since that comment was removed and blocked out due to being a personal attack, but I felt that I would take this time to give you something to think about while you are now blocked from even commenting on this talk page (at least as your user account):
Your problem from the beginning on this matter has been your refusal to accept that pedophilia and ephebophilia are distinguished, and that sources back this up. No matter how you want to define pedophilia, it is defined as the sexual preference for prepubescent children; the sexual attraction or preference for clearly pubescent or post-pubescent individuals is not pedophilia whatsoever. As I stated to you before, back on the Ephebophilia talk page:
Wikipedia is not taking a position by stating that ephebophilia should not be confused with pedophilia. Wikipedia is simply relaying fact by stating that ephebophilia should not be confused with pedophilia. The article even makes this distinction... You act as though there is some debate about whether the definition of pedophilia should include a sexual attraction to teenagers. There isn't one, thus Wikipedia is not taking a side, but is rather clearing up confusion and ignorance some people have concerning what pedophilia truly is.
Furthermore (in addition to that quote), late teenagers who are still underage, as in 16 and 17-year-olds, can be pedophiles, as the World Health Organization (WHO) states (see F65.4 - pages 166-16).[1] If older adults finding 16 to 17-year-olds sexually attractive was actually pedophilia, then there would be no way that 16 and 17-year-olds could also be pedophiles; a 17-year-old guy consistently sexually abusing prepubescent girls would simply be viewed as "mistakes" by one child upon other children. Luckily, the law and medical/psychological community see the extreme difference between someone who is 8 and someone who is 17. Likewise, that extreme difference exists between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
My arguments regarding older adults being sexually attracted to 16 and 17-year-olds not being bizarre or a mental disorder have heavily relied upon the fact that 16-year-olds are usually indistinguishable age-wise from 18-year-olds. With these matters, I almost always bring up the fact that it is simply ludicrous to state that a sexual attraction to a 17-year-old is pedophilia but that a sexual attraction to an 18-year-old is not, as if the two ages are really distinguishable appearance-wise. I do not understand where you got the impression that I view a sexual attraction or preference for young people ages 9 to 13 as perfectly fine or normal (because, really, people as young as 9 are not usually "legal meat"), or that I feel that older adults going after 15-year-olds sexually is fine, but my comments have consistently been the opposite of that. Examples include...
From the Ephebophilia talk page
"A person being sexually attracted to a 9-year-old girl who has just hit puberty is still called a pedophile due to her very much child-like appearance. The majority of mid to late teenagers, however, do not look like 9-year-olds."
"17 looks no physically different age-wise than age 18. Therefore, how in the hell could being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old be pedophilia and a mental disorder but being sexually attracted to an 18-year-old not be?"
"As for 'why would a real deviant want a girl who already has breasts and menstrual cycles?'...if it's a child who has gone through precocious puberty, but still looks like a child, I would say that [the person sexually attracted to the child] is a real deviant. I'm not sure too many normal men would be sexually interested in an 8-year-old girl, no matter having breasts and menstrual cycles. It's one thing to have the same thing as women, but another to otherwise look like a child, despite having the same thing as women. It's not even a matter of the 8-year-old having child-like attributes, but basically still very much looking like a child."
"And while some 15-year-olds look no physically different age-wise than older adolescents, enough of them do that it can be argued that more adults are not sexually attracted to 15-year-olds than are."
"I have never seen a 13-year-old who looks no different age-wise than an 18-year-old."
From my talk page
"I cannot just brush it off as a 'dirty old man' thing when a man is sexually fantasizing about 9-year-old females; that type of sexual fantasy is bordering on pedophilia, and is pedophilia in a lot of cases."
"Whenever the 9 year olds are male, it is always considered pedophilia due to how boys physically mature slower than girls. But, still, except for a 9-year-old girl having breasts (not all girls of that age are that developed), I do not see it as that distinct from pedophilia for a man to be sexually fantasizing about 9 year old girls...given how very child-like 9 year olds look. 12 year olds? As I stated before, I also find people sexually fantasizing about 12 year olds to be abnormal in that sense. A passing 'I'm so ashamed I just briefly found a girl this young sexually attractive' type of thing happens in some cases when the 12-year-old girl has adult features, but I would state that most normal men do not fantasize about 12 and 13-year-old girls on a regular basis. I would also state that, given societal conditioning, most normal men do not sexually fantasize about any underage teenagers on a regular basis...unless fixated on one or a few particular teenagers...such as any 'dirty old man' who might have been sexually obsessed with a 17-year-old Britney Spears."
"I am not convinced that 12 and 13-year-olds fall into the general attraction zone for ephebophiles; that is more a pedophile and a hebephile thing, depending on the development of the youths (I also mean boys, of course)."
"I still state that given how young-looking 13-year-olds typically are, it is "off" for men to desire them sexually, especially in favor of healthy-looking adult women of 18 or older."
And those are only a few examples. Perhaps you are confusing me with SSovereign, but you should re-read all of what I stated in the Talk:Ephebophilia#Distinguish-pedophilia tag? discussion back in 2008.
I do not know how you are confusing me with being a pedophile or with being a pedophile-pusher (or both) or if you are just being patronizing, but I decided I would try one last time to get you to understand. It is most likely fruitless to even try, seeing as you would probably consider Chris Hansen a pedophile as well for stating, "We don't label these guys as pedophiles. Pedophiles have a very specific definition, people who are interested in prepubescent sex. What we're talking about here are potential predators." (In reference to To Catch a Predator.)[2] But I tried anyway.
You may additionally want to check the archives of the Pedophilia talk page and see all the actual pedophiles/pedophile-pushers I have combated. Flyer22 (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mats Halldin May 2008.jpg listed for deletion
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
this is a great book i feel in love with it. the painting is just so beautiful and it tells a story it also has a meaning to why it was painted like this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.11.194 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
