72.203.170.176

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "pedophile", did not seem to be helpful and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you. We want the article at pedophilia, not pedophile. Auntof6 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the change, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. You might not have done it on purpose, but your recent change removed helpful information from Wikipedia. We ask that you do not remove things from pages, as you did to "Talk:Pedophilia", without giving a good reason in the change summary. If it was a mistake, do not worry. The part of the article you removed has been put back. If you want to try things out, please use the sandbox. If you would like to learn how to help Wikipedia, please see the welcome page. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the change, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Auntof6, I was not engaging in unhelpful changes, as made clear here and here. I know what I am doing. You should not be letting these edits by a problematic, indefinitely blocked editor stand. The article can be moved to Pedophilia without keeping his edits and without splitting the article's edit history. 72.203.170.176 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You redirected "pedophilia" to "pedophile". It should be the other way around, otherwise we would have changed that when we cleaned up after that editor and his various aliases. If there are problem edits on the pedophilia page, feel free to fix them. Just note that not all edits by problem editors are necessarily bad. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6, like I stated, I know what I am doing on this matter. I restored the content because the editor added faulty language, such as calling a 16-year-old an adult even though 16-year-olds are not usually viewed as adults, and he split the edit histories. There is no valid reason that the edit history of the Pedophile article should be disjointed; if the article had been properly moved instead of cut-and-pasted, there wouldn't be a problem. I restored the content so that I could then comment on the talk page and ask that you or someone else have the article properly moved to the title of Pedophilia. Before I could do that, you showed up and reverted me as though I am some vandal, and I instead replied how I did above and with this bit. If you look at FDR's Wikipedia editing history, you will see that you are dealing with a very problematic editor who should not be editing pedophilia or age of consent topics. 72.203.170.176 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to look at the edit history because I remember this editor very well. I agree with your reasons. I saw no indication of what you had in mind, so I reverted to make the redirect direction correct. The article still needs cleanup, though, which I'll assume you're going to do. For one thing, Pedophilia is now about pedophiles, not pedophilia. It should be worded to be about the condition, not the people. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's anything to do with children, including puberty, then he should not be editing it. 72.203.170.176 (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That may be, but he wasn't blocked for the content of his edits. He was blocked for sockpuppetry. I'm not sure his edits on other topics would be any better, so it's probably not appropriate to single out certain areas. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)