| Revision as of 06:06, 15 May 2010 editMeco (talk | contribs)53,690 edits →Misplaced Pages:Pedophilia: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:13, 15 May 2010 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 10d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Archive 5.Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| {{archive box|auto=yes|]}} | {{archive box|auto=yes|]}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Is there a need for this project? == | |||
| Is this project really needed? Isn't this topic covered pretty well by ] and ]? Please contact me on my talk page for a reply. - ] (]) 14:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't quite understood what happened to this WikiProject. I think it used to be very active, and there certainly has been a lot of heated controversy related to the articles that are within the scope of this project. I think there is still some activity at ] which started as a subpage of this project (i.e. ]). It's been my impression that a number of purported childlove advocates have been run off Misplaced Pages and banned from editing, and this project or perhaps more accurately a portion of its members may have been instrumental in those procedings. __] (]) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, this project does still serve a purpose. It helps coordinate editing of pedophilia-related articles. <b>] ] </b> 23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would be interested helping revive this project. It's a little discouraging that the project page does not list any active participants. - ] (]) 16:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, you are certainly very welcome to contribute to project-related articles, simply by doing so individually. The project itself would need to be revived only if there were a need to coordinate and to disseminate information to a group, I guess. Anyway, the project should be revivified if and only if there is a person/people, dedicated to the original intent of the project, willing to attend to the project pages, as this subject tends to accumulate trollery if unattended. ] (]) 04:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == moved from main page, re topic mentorship == | |||
| The following comment was removed from the main page. It belongs on a talk page: | |||
| :''It is not my impression that Misplaced Pages:Pedophile topic mentorship is inactive, on the contrary, it seems to have superseded the current WikiProject in a way so that the articles which it surveils aren't tagged with this project's signature. __] (]) 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)'' | |||
| (My response is, this may have been my error, and if so, sorry, and anyone who wants to can restore the topic mentorship to its correct place. ] (]) 04:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Pedophilia == | == Misplaced Pages:Pedophilia == | ||
Revision as of 08:13, 15 May 2010
|
This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 7 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
 Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Talk page archive of obsoleted subpage "Terminology" - circa 2006 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Misplaced Pages:Pedophilia
Shouldn't something be written with regards to Misplaced Pages:Pedophilia? __meco (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. I just noticed this page by typing in the old short cut, wp:pedo. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- That page is still under discussion. It seems someone got tired of all the secrecy and hush-hush regarding blocking of editors who self-identify as pedophiles. Apparently ArbCom has devised such a policy in half secrecy and now some of the ArbCom members want to have this more out in the open. That again has now led to the basic rationale for this policy and its practice to come under scrutiny. This again has met the same obstacles of secrecy and withholding of case information. This withholding is done with the rationale that these blocked editors' identity need protecting from a hostile community. To me it all seems utterly Kafkaesque, and I'm trying to get a grip on the matter. __meco (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)