User talk:Legitimus

DSM-5 question

Hi Legitimus,

Do you know the page number for what is cited to the DSM-5 in the lead sentence of Breast fetishism? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DSM doesn't mention "breast fetishism" by that specific name, but "partialism" is mentioned on page 701, in the section regarding Fetishistic Disorder. The paragraph is as follows:

"It is not uncommon for sexualized fetishes to include both inanimate objects and body parts (e.g., dirty socks and feet), and for this reason the definition of fetishistic disorder now re-incorporates partialism (i.e., an exclusive focus on a body part) into its boundaries. Partialism, previously considered a paraphilia not otherwise specified disorder, had historically been subsumed in fetishism prior to DSM-IIΙ." Legitimus (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Child grooming page

Legitimus, why are you creating me much problem to add the legal part mention in brakets at the beginning of the article regarding Child grooming and you even want me to start a discussion in the talk page despite already explaining you the reasons why should be added as a post-edit explanation? 151.46.64.34 (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the only person to revert you, and you do not seem to understand proper procedure editing. Articles are meant to follow the manual of style and the top-most section must follow even more rigorous standards, including being concise. Long sentences set in parenthesis tend to be poor writing form for the first sentence of an article.

Now, please post your reasoning in the talk page for the article to allow others to weigh in. One potential outcome is your addition simply needs to be rephrased more cleanly in a way that can be incorporated into the sentence rather than as a parenthetical.

I personally find it strange how you feel the need to point out such an oddly specific definition in the lead sentence of an article that already includes language that covers it. I also find it strange that you are being so emphatic about working in this "legal age of consent" language considering your IP address is from a nation that for one, is non-English-speaking, and second where that age is 14 years old.Legitimus (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work

Dear Legitimus,

I’ve just recently started editing Wikipedia and part of my process of Wiki-self-education involves watching and learning from the editing of our most talented editors, especially their explanations and conversations on Talk pages. Your work on our child abuse/rape and pedophilia articles, particularly, is simply phenomenal. Your background knowledge of the state of the relevant disciplines, and the way you make use of that knowledge, is unsurpassed.

I especially admire how you interact with (or maybe “deal with” is more appropriate in many of the cases) editors who show up to some of those articles’ Talk pages attempting to undermine the entirety of the DSM or the ICD or the entire profession and body of research of mental health experts—oftentimes to justify their own behaviors or disorders.

So thank you. In my short time here, I’ve seen that editing can oftentimes be a thankless job for our smartest and most knowledgeable editors. If more of us were like you, this place would be even better than it already is.

Sincerely, ThanksForHelping (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full text search

Maybe I‘m missing sth but for me the linked version is searchable… CarlFromVienna (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I found the search box. However, while the term "veganism" doesn't appear, the word "vegan" does appear six times in the portions of the book that are not hidden by the preview mode. Legitimus (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my mistake after all. I searched for „veg“ (to get veg-an/ism and veg-etarian/ism) but got no result. I will read the passages in detail tomorrow and edit the article accordingly. CarlFromVienna (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the paragraph where Bratman and Knight talk about veganism and added their reasoning to the article. It was good to have a look into this in detail as their reasoning seems to be a child of their time. I don't think that anyone today who's working professionally in the field would share their simplistic repudiation of vegan ethics. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful in how you're presenting that information in the article. A common mistake in editing is intentionally cherry-picking quotes and information from sources in biased manner. I see that you chose quotes that make Bratman seem biased or outdated, but didn't actually cover why he felt veganism can be a vehicle for orthorexia. Note this is distinct from saying the two are interchangeable or that one is causing the other. As a comparison, it is already well understood in psychological practice that anorexia nervosa patients frequently use veganism as a method of symptom concealment as well as a way to socially strong-arm their lack of food intake among family and peers. This is not the same thing as saying veganism causes anorexia or that vegans are all anorexic.Legitimus (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it‘s not cherrypicking, but if you cannot summarize a source you cannot use it, right? The source is rather unscientific and anecdotal so I kindly ask you not to blame me when trying to summarize it. So a way in between is to use the source anyways but quote it. Currently the article blablas that they „expanded the subject“. Their views are clearly not neutral but based in the ethical reference system of the time. Mentioning this is important especially as this is the history section. If you disagree with the quotations please copyedit but don’t delete. CarlFromVienna (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military impostor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Service Cross. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement between Wikipedia and Wiktionary on whether non-offending p***philes exist

(Sorry, I have to censor the word p***phile or the automatic personal-attack detector thinks i'm calling someone else a p***phile)

My en-wiktionary account, Gapazoid, was blocked by Surjection for “promoting the idea that there are non-offending p***philes” which they claim counts as p***philia advocacy and a violation of the Child Protection Policy.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the Wikipedia page on p***philia also promotes the idea that non-offending p***philes exist. So clearly, acknowledging the existence of non-offending p***philes is not considered a blockable offense on Wikipedia, in contrast to Wiktionary. These two interpretations of Wikimedia policy directly contradict each other. I have brought this to the attention of the en-wiktionary admins, but they are ignoring my emails.

Later my account was globally locked by steward EPIC. I brought the same argument to the stewards, but they are also stonewalling me and just repeat that my global lock cannot be appealed until after my en-wiktionary block is successfully appealed.

It is not fair that I should be globally locked from all Wikimedia projects for breaking a rule that only exists on one of them.

I recognize that contacting you via your talk page is ban evasion. ConnorGardnerWeston (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help you. I am not an admin and have no authority on any of these sites.Legitimus (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]