User talk:RJR3333: Difference between revisions

August 2011

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:Age of consent 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) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Welcome!

Hello, RJR3333, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Age of consent... + award!

This is fine work, and thank you! In fact...

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		to RJR3333, for coming right in and right away making good and important referenced edits on an important subject. Really improved that article! Herostratus (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 20:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sky is blue" statements

There IS a rule saying that obvious statements should be sourced, especially on contentious articles. They're required to be sourced on articles about living people(so not the edit you made). I find it likely that this was just an overzealous revert on Jeff's part. I'm going to reinsert your change with a {{citation-needed}} template. If you could tell me how you know what you wrote was true, we can work on finding a source. i kan reed (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to George W. Bush appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Your edit was either not adhering to a neutral point of view, or improper use of humor in an article. Either way, it has been reverted, as neither are permitted. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Some advice

Hello, RJR3333. If you're interested in adding something about the Dora case to the Sigmund Freud article, then a source you could use is Frederick Crews' The Memory Wars. It's discussed there on pages 49-50. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Crews isn't a reliable source though he's very pov against Freud wouldn't someone else be better? --RJR3333 (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

re Bush

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at George W. Bush, you may be blocked from editing. You know you can't do this type of thing. It seems you have some good edits mixed with your bad ones. If you want to stick around here concentrate on the good ones. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what's deal with this? Here I give you an Outstanding Newcomer award and then this? Well, no matter, a lot of use started out with bumps in the road early in our career, just stop doing it it'll be left behind. If you need any assistance or mentoring or have any questions about anything, drop me a line. Herostratus (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

re Talmud

OK, I'll take a look at it. For contentious material, we want very good refs that amount to pretty close to ironclad indication that the statement the support is true. The statement could certainly be taken to read "Jews rape children (or used to, or at any rate their law allowed what we would call child rape)" so as you can imagine this'd likely be inflammatory. It it's true, no problem, but we want to be 100% sure that it's true before we say it. If there's contradictory info (say either, "It doesn't really say that, that's a misinterpretation" or "Sure, it says that, but nobody really followed it") we'd want to include that and look int--RJR3333 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)o that also. (There's been a related assertion here regarding Mohammed -- apparently he was married to a nine-year-old or something and then had (or didn't have!) sex with her soon after -- and its been pretty contentious.) We want to be be real conservative with potentially inflammatory material of this nature. Herostratus (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Chris Hansen, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edit here makes it sound as if the age of consent in America is just above 15, and that the producers of the show based their choice of age range on that. The show's producers chose this age range because it could be credibly impersonated. They based this on the most effective methods that law enforcement uses and the show was done in tandem with the local police. Your edit needs to be clarified to mention that and not suggest the age range was based on "age of consent." Do you have a citation that specifically says the show only impersonated children between the ages of 11 and 15 because the show's producers believed this age group was below the age of consent for that jurisdiction? Or that, for that jurisdiction, the age of consent started at 16? BTW, I have your page on my Watchlist so please reply here to keep the conversation on one page. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no federal age of consent. In most states the age of consent is 18, but some set it at 16 or 17. That was my point, they choose the age range because 15 is illegal in all states. Some states have an age of consent below 18 though. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, states with ages between 16 and 17 are qualified with age gaps and other conditions. And actually, no state's statute uses the term "age of consent" for sex. So using that term in regards to sex with minors in the United States is misleading. And where states use the age of 16 and 17 as a starting point it is because they are exempting sex between those of the same age, or classifying sex between someone under 18 and someone between 18 and 21 for the purpose of distinguishing between a misdemeanor and a felony. This is an example of dealing with an "age gap" and California is a good example. All the states clarify this. These laws are very detailed in that regard.

On the Federal level, the United States does not have a uniform federal law regarding a threshold for sex with minors that covers all 50 states. But there are federal statutes regarding sex with children under the age of 18, especially as relates to pornography, transporting minors for the purposes of porn, sex, human trafficking, internet porn, etc. And none of the Federal statutes use any "age of consent" language either. The edit is misleading and has no citation to back it up.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)