User talk:Plateau99

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the test area.
• You can get help at the Help Desk
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

Thanks for uploading Image:BlueV.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Silver_v.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:4Pokeboxes.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Diddy kong select screen.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Marsdustdevil.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Zoophilia are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per talk-page agreement, there is a POV concern about the Zoophilia and the law page. Therefore I have replaced the tag that you have removed. You are welcome to discuss on the talk-page to help resolve the concern there. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Plateau99 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Puchiko (Talk-email) 07:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi. Your participation at Talk:Zoophilia#Abusivness would be very welcome, please do take part. We're trying to reach consensus on the lead, where we've reverted each other a few times.
Also, please do your best to make more use of the WP:Edit summary, as it helps other editors see what changes you've made.
We have the common goal of improving Wikipedia, so let's not have this turn into an editing dispute. Best wishes Puchiko (Talk-email) 07:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Zoophilia shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Calabe1992 03:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but other user continues to dominate the zoophilia article and revert every single edit I make to itPlateau99 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try making smaller changes, and if that doesn't work, pursue your options per WP:DR.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to WP:DR you will see that this dispute over the zoophilia article has been going on for weeks and nobody (except for one person) has stepped in to mediate it. And that one person has not done anything. I also want to mention that I started out several hours ago trying to make a smaller edit, but then the bully Someone963852 undid it as always (he seems to own the article now.)Plateau99 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Zoophilia. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Guerillero | My Talk 03:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Zoophilia". Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I full protected zoophilia due to the resurgence of the ongoing edit war there. I did not block you because you were discussing the issue on the talk page. If you can come to an agreement I will unlock the page. I will hand out blocks again if you edit war after the page lock is lifted or it expires. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Guerillero | My Talk 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of you have made about 10 reverts today. The block is to prevent the edit war from continuing. If you would like, I will list this block on WP:ANI for review. I personally don't care what happens to the article and I do not have enough time to broker a compromise between you both. I suggest that after you return from your block you try a robust form of [[WP:|dispute resolution]]. The local discussion has not moved forward at all since December. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault that User:Someone963852 is not willing to compromise. Anything perceived by him as being "pro-zoophilia" even in the slightest bit is reverted by him, no matter what it is. It's not just me; other users (such as user:Nprieve) have also had their edits reverted by Someone963852 just because their edits didn't fit his view. When something doesn't fit his view, he throws around terms like "original research" and "false claims" to justify his views (even when the information in question is clearly verifiable). I tried to reach a compromise with him but he just kept reverting. Plateau99 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Zoophilia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Zoophilia and the law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive agenda editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent hours explaining why I do not have an "agenda" (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), and I have been personally attacked by various users during that process -- yet I am the one who is blocked, not them. I thought Wikipedia had more integrity than this. Plateau99 (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Plateau99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I was not "agenda editing"; I was attempting (in good faith) to undo the erasures made by Someone963852 and other users in order to maintain a NPOV; I also find it offensive that people at WP:ANI were borderline personally attacking me (i.e. calling me a "troll"). Due to the persistent hostility I have received regarding edits to zoophilia-related pages, I would be willing to edit those articles less often

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. If you want to be unblocked, you need to address the concerns that were raised and give a clear and unequivocal statement on how you understand how your behavior got you blocked, and an equally clear and unequivocal statement that you will not return to such behavior again, without commentary on other users - please read WP:GAB before requesting unblock again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

I would like to see this user answer to the requests made at WP:DRN specifically WP:DRN#Zoophilia and the law. I'd like to propose that if his block would not otherwise be lifted that it be lifted with a condition that he only be allowed to edit at WP:DRN to solve a content dispute which resulted in the edit war that got the block. If found in violation of this condition, I'd move for reimplementation of the block immediately. I would also expect the user to make a binding comment in regards to this. It may not be a perfect process, but I would like to give this user a voice to respond to the DRN comment and explain the matter, understand the views and be given a chance to make positive improvements in the discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was unable to finish what at I had to say at the Administrator's noticeboard due to the block. Plateau99 (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest agreeing to the condition before the reviewing admin looks at this. You were skating on thin ice, but with a binding agreement to sort this out, respond only to the DRN posting and help fix up these articles, that you can fix up something you care about. With a little work and a step back from your personal beliefs, I bet the article could be much better than it is now. Almost all fetish articles and sexuality pages are of said quality, who knows you might push it to GA status if you work hard and keep it neutral. Would you promise to edit only at DRN until the content matter is resolved if it means being removed from your indefinite block? Indefinite blocks are not eternal, so long as you actively seek improvement or change, this is the chance I want to give you. Provided the admin agrees, of course. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be willing to only go to DRN and abandon the ANI; any conversations at DRN would need to steer clear of the endless back-and-forth, bad faith discussions such as the one at ANI -- however, the users who were against me might PA me again (instead of cooperating). Plateau99 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but those weren't personal attacks, they were calling a spade a spade. Also, your comments above say you'd "abandon the ANI", but do not address whether or not you would only post at DRN. If you wish to respond to comments at DRN, it might be possible for you to post here and have somebody else copy your comments there to "wrap things up" as it were. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to do so, even if the conversation becomes largely between the two of us, assuming the response at DRN is not able to get other parties, I believe I can be an effective guide and present a rational view so that the article is updated and a concrete archive of what transpires, or I could just move the entire thing here if preferred. Plateau99, Wikipedia may not be all daisies and love, sensitive topics and a strong push it likely to anger the community, I'd be more than happy to assist in making changes that improve the content of any such pages. Reliable sources are key, I am of the firm belief that such articles regard extremely heavy sourcing for each and every claim and sentence.

Second note, unblocks are not about eating crow, but they must give a reason to believe that further damage will stop, previous blocks were supposed to reinforce this. The matter of an 'agenda' is a sticking point, but I believe you can remove your strong personal opinions and substitute them with reliable sources. If the article is improved and is neutral than people will probably forget about you as pushing an 'agenda' and approve of the matter. Some at ANI relate it to pedophilia which is also a terrible article from a medical POV and a social POV, while definitely not global nor historical in scope, such articles are doomed without special care and a light hand. I'd give examples, but it'd go off topic, so I'm just going to point out that said matters affect this zoophilia article. Afterall, how many myths, legends, customs and such speak of humans and gods doing this exact thing? I see no mention of the Minotaur; or those other mythological offshoots and such stories are ingrained into religion and culture. Step down your personal views and use reliable sources for every piece of content you add or remove. I'll be happy to guide you, but you have to be willing to remain calm and don't point fingers, your contributions should make the argument for you, and if someone is upset, discuss it, but don't edit war. I'm not going to baby you, I'm just willing to give you a fair shot to fix things up and make you a recognized contributor; we need more people to edit such pages, constructively of course. I'll bring a portion of the DRN here, so you can provide input, I'll transfer it over afterwards, if you are not unblocked. Such proof may be required at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a very brief section that needs to be expanded, it is not very specific and thus is a good gauge on your ability to address the subject neutrally. I would like you to provide a new text to round this two sentence bit into a better version which addresses the matter using sources. At this time, use external links or parenthesis as your references for internet and for book sources. So 'Text text text.(Book source, author...etc)' or 'text text text.(Site, External link). That way it can be peer-reviewed and if it is good it can be added to the article, and you may be unblocked. I'm open to suggestions on another bit if you want, but I'm trying to be accommodating. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laws on bestiality tend to be shaped by animal welfare concerns, moral views and cultural beliefs. Animal welfare bodies usually, but not always, view zoophilia as a matter of animal abuse.

Laws on bestiality tend to be shaped by animal welfare concerns, moral views and cultural beliefs. Animal welfare bodies usually, but not always, view zoophilia as a matter of animal abuse. The laws in many jurisdictions originate from sodomy laws.^[1] Though many of these laws have been repealed, vestiges of them (the anti-bestiality portions of them) still remain, as is the case in Massachusetts.^[2] Laws against bestiality are based on the moral views of current society and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of other cultures, such as the Hopi Native Americans or the Masaai people of Africa (see cultural relativism).^[3] Though some have claimed that such laws are justified for preventing what is perceived to be abuse^[4], others have argued that the reasons for such laws are not compelling.^[5] The taboo associated with interspecies sex between humans and other animals, along with reactionary behavior to specific incidents, may be partly responsible for the laws.^[6]

Sorry, but this might be a dumb question to ask. Do you have access to highbeam research? I found a SINGLE source that COMPLETELY blows everything in the entire article out of the water, with a history of bestiality. Going from the last Ice age through the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Middle Ages right up to the Catholic Church's persecution and some interesting points that show the prevalence of bestiality was so widespread in the 17th century that they tried to outlaw male herdsmen. It goes on to describe bestiality in Asia, the middle east and Indian religious matters, of which sex with sacred animals was a blessing. South America as well. Even Kinsey showed bestiality was a 1 in 13 amongst men and even in the Hunt study it was 1 in 20.

Even women are noted to engage in the practice. Now I'm not going into the nitty gritty of the details, but let's just put it this way, there are numerous, nay hundreds of sources which are clearly pro-bestiality, many studies in modern times and many many sources to follow. Clearly, the subject is touchy and rightfully so, but are you going to completely dismiss that for several thousand years such practices were approved and typically religious? Take a look at Miletski, Hani. "Introduction to Bestiality and Zoophilia." Contemporary Sexuality. American Assn of Sex Educators, Counselors & Therapists. 2006. Retrieved August 21, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1186328981.html Its surprising and reliable.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Highbeam sounds like a good source. I would add it to the article but I'm blocked and my unblock request was denied. I could try to make another unblock request, but it might get denied again. Plateau99 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you READ the article, that's what I am asking about. It does no good to have you ref something you cannot read. I ask this, because I want you to redo your section as it is not good enough, not neutral enough and definitely needs better sources.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention, that medical and psychological analysis yields much of the same results. The deeper I dig into this, it seems that Plateau99's so called bias, while poorly worded and lacking much in the way of proper sourcing, suggests that our articles are NOT NPOV and he may have been making a crude attempt to fix it. With proper sourcing, backing the history and pointing to the circumstances surrounding the laws, I'm certain that more than enough information to fully flesh out the page can be made. Sources regularly put that more than 5% of men and 2-3% of women engage in this practice in modern times making it one of the most common 'fetishes' and having more prevalence than almost all other forms of 'fetishes'. I could write up a section later tonight if you wish to read it, but quite clearly, this subject matter must be done carefully and to counter systematic bias without being 'pro' or 'anti' anything. Let the sources do the talking; more than enough exist to ensure that no original research or personal opinions should ever be present in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plateau99 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Guerillero | My Talk 04:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Diddy kong select screen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]