User talk:Sturunner

|}

|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|

|}

|}

Per our discussion at the office, here's the link: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&diff=next&oldid=298662430 here] removed a citation that was cited elsewhere in the article. Was it an unreliable source? It seems reliable to me. Please be careful when removing citation. Sligocki (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You moved the article and asked for one source which used this terminology? I did a quick hunt for a few. If you'd like, I could find more. All these use the terminology in the same context. This is the commonly accepted "terminology." It would be nice if you could put things back together like they're supposed to be, thanks,

::Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 02:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You could just do a Google search to see how this is the commonly accepted name too, and thus in line with Wikipeida's naming policies...: [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22sex+abuse+hysteria%22&start=0&sa=N&fp=7d15299a959dbb33 "Sex abuse hysteria"]

Title Sex abuse hysteria

Author Richard A. Gardner

Edition 2, illustrated

Publisher Creative Therapeutics, 1991

(also film of the same name, Cited by 66 sources according to Google Scholar)

Title Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act for Dealing with Sex Abuse Hysteria

Journal Issues in Child Abuse Accusations

Author RA Gardner

Year IPT Forensics, 1993

Mass Hysteria in Oude Pekela. Benjamin Rossen, Vol 1, No 1, 1989

The Phenomenon of Child Sexual Abuse Hysteria as a Social Syndrome: A New Kind of Expert Testimony. Lawrence D. Spiegel, Vol 2, No 1, 1990

News Media Coverage and National Hysteria, Volume 7, 1995

Hysteria spreads, Volume 7, 1995

A Canadian Perspective on Child Sexual Abuse Accusations in the Gender War, Brian Hindmarch, Vol 3, 1991

"This phenomenon must be understood when examining the present child sexual abuse hysteria."

Chapter Sex Abuse Hysteria (9)

Title Everyday irrationality: how pseudo-scientists, lunatics, and the rest of us systematically fail to think rationally

Author Robyn M. Dawes

Edition Illustrated

Publisher Westview Press, 2002

Title Making monsters: false memories, psychotherapy, and sexual hysteria

Authors Richard Ofshe, Ethan Watters

Publisher Charles Scribner's, 1994

Original from the University of Michigan

Title: Witch Hunt: A True Story of Social Hysteria and Abused Justice Positive Review Positive Review

Author: Kathryn Lyon

Publisher: Avon Books, 1998

Title: Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern About Child Victims Positive Review Positive Review Positive Review

Author: Joel Best

Publisher: University of Chicago Press © 1990

Quote: Dr. Best blames much of America's hysteria on the media, particularly the "ten second sound bites."

Title The abuse of innocence: the McMartin Preschool trial

Notable trials library

Authors Paul Eberle, Shirley Eberle

Edition illustrated, braille

Publisher Prometheus Books, 1993

Original from the University of Michigan

Quote: "The result was mass hysteria unlike anything experienced in America in decades."

Just wondering if you could explain why you moved the page again completely against consensus and evidence?

::Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE do not try fixing things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godhra_train_burning&action=history that] yourself! It is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20091007044558&limit=10&user=J.delanoy extremely frustrating] trying to figure out where everything is supposed to go.
If something similar happens again, just post to WP:ANI and ask an admin to sort it out. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In case people do try to look up the article as "Godhra train attack" (or "incident" or "massacre"), with or without capitalized words, I've made REDIRECTs there so they see the article at Godhra train burning. This should remove any need to rename the article, and I hope it will end the dispute. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

25px Welcome to Wikipedia. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos?diff=323042211 recent edit] you made to the page :Daily Kos has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 03:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatiya_Janata_Party&curid=149330&diff=328294182&oldid=328192769] I don't know whether this is true, but it sounds important, and it needs a citation. Do you know where we could find one? JosiahHenderson (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

: not offhand. Could be in the general temple article or in the article on the train attack. Gotta crash (I'm working early tm). Sturunner (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just undid your undoing of my removal of the info on the "Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases" page. I listed the reason I did this the second time as because it is redundant information that was listed above it. But you should be aware that this information did not actually appear on the page.

In addition to this, when you undid my revision, you removed the information I inserted about the Diocese of Savannah.

I would appreciate if you would not simply "undo" my revision so that you do not delete the information I have added.

The information you reinserted already appears in an edited format in the "Diocese of Sacramento" section. If the info that is there is not detailed enough please edit that section.

And *PLEASE* make sure that information you add actually appears on the wikipedia page itself. Mrbusta (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When enough people disagree with your edits, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria&diff=361483042&oldid=361257472 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria&diff=361633622&oldid=361585510 here], you are expected to accept tentative consensus and bring things up on the talk page. Please go to talk:Day care sex abuse hysteria.

Also regarding Philip Jenkins, he has done some research on the catholic sex abuse cases (see [http://books.google.ca/books?id=oTaQPSjSlfEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pedophiles+and+Priests:+Anatomy+of+a+Contemporary+Crisis&source=bl&ots=3qEoxGxra2&sig=tv9Xv7Hu8pjviprrZZd3z8dRFO4&hl=en&ei=2_PvS9PpN4aBlAfSoaC1CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false here]) and further has verifiably talked about it in a newspaper. Unless there is a statement somewhere that he has altered his opinion (and it's actually noted in his [http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/vita.htm CV] so I doubt it) it should remain on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

25px You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :Catholic sex abuse cases‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Bilby (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And there aren't any. Ever. Just revisions by defenders of the indefensible. Fortunately, there are courts, in the US & Australia, as well as public opinion. And there is a growing lack of donations to guilty bishops & the Vatican. WP articles are increasingly irrelevant. We win where it is necessary--in court & public opinion.

venceremos

Sturunner (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:Nuns? Do they come into the picture at all? No one is defending the indefensible. Child rape obviously is wrong and causes grievious hurt, esp. by today's standards and laws. The abusers ought to be reported to the police. And those who cover up for them also did wrong. What's happening is the media is currently ignoring "today’s hurricane to report a stiff wind long ago". And what's new is the media has started a witch hunt against the Church and her leader (Pope Benedict) who has done the most to address the issue. So what a number of us are doing is basically to put the whole issue in context of the society then, the Church's responses, the problem of over-emphasis and inaccuracies in media coverage, etc. joo (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted a media criticism by Tom Hoopes on "10 Ways Media Has Failed to Protect Children". This include the exaggerated and selective media coverage of the Catholic Sex Abuse Cases and media non-coverage of a much higher incidence of abuses among educators and even teens referred to Planned Parenthood. Why did you remove it? And it's on the Talk page. Our page mediator Xavexgoem wrote, "Stop edit warring on a talk page, fercryinoutloud." joo (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling the removal of multiple WP violations vandalism is disingenuous and insulting. Please try to be a more mature and constructive participant on wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits of other users as 'vandalism' is against policy, and there's strong precedent for action to be taken in situations of repeat mistagging at WP:ANI. You've been warned of this before. I'd highly recommend reading the WP:Vandalism page, and being very careful about which edits you mark as such.

Also, please do not remove talk page comments which you don't agree with. Vandalism from users who have been warned of their behavior repeatedly is one thing... good faith contributions to the discussion is quite another.

25px You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :Catholic sex abuse cases. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

In regard to the sexual abuse article: I have no problem acknowledging that child sexual abuse can equate to child rape. However, the article is about sexual abuse in general, not just sexual abuse of children, thus it is reasonable that the first line discusses the general issue. So your change from:

:Sexual abuse, also referred to as molestation ...

to:

:Sexual abuse, also referred to as child rape ...

is effectively ignoring the other types of sexual abuse that exist toward people other than children, and therefore is incorrect. The notion of child sexual abuse is raised a couple of sentence later in the lead, so it isn't being ignored.

In regard to your second change, from "child molestation" to "child rape", you are on better footing, but doing so ignores the wide range of ways in which a child can suffer at the hands of another person while still not being necessarily "raped" in any legal sense. It is horrible, but there are many forms of child sexual molestation, some of which do not equate to child rape, so the statement that the two are equivalent is incorrect. - Bilby (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack Wikipedia editors, as you did in a recent edit summary on Catholic sex abuse cases, saying WP editors have a "pro-pedophilia" bias. Such a claim is considered to be a personal attack, and is forbidden by the WP:NPA policy. Furthermore, you might note the phrase "you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar." If you check the talk page for the article, you'll see that we're currently discussing the issue, and that, in fact, we're slowly moving to the consensus not to include that section. But changes are much better made through consensus than through edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

{{talkback|Mann_jess}} Jess_talk|_edits 04:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

30px This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at :Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You cannot remove talk page discussion you disagree with. Talk page discussion can only be removed when it is blatant vandalism. In cases where it is egregiously off-topic, it is sometimes appropriate to hat the discussion or move it to user space. This was neither; The user was talking about a specific (quoted) section of the article politely and respectfully, and cited sources. Removing it is disruptive. You know this, and have been warned of it repeatedly in the past. This is the last warning I will give you about this behavior before filing a report. Please stop. Jess_talk|_edits 02:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I declined to block in response to your AIV report for {{user|Fr rohirrim}} - though I did warn them for their edits, as they still had a redlinked talk page. If you've got evidence of a sockfarm working this article, or if there is behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry that isn't immediately apparent, your best bet is to file a report at WP:SPI. They're the ones best able to judge such things, and they can run the appropriate checks for IPs and such. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Information.svg 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 :Day care sex abuse hysteria, 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. The reverted edit can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=386013879 here]. Thank you. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sturunner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :Eidetic memory, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc mailing list].

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

25px Hi Sturunner. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete :Institute for Psychological Therapies, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion 7 because of the following concern: article contained a couple of references, and way exceeded the requirements of A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

File:10mark k.svg

File:US_National_Archives_Building.jpg

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

• Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
• Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
• Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
• Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

----

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section does not need to be sourced so long as the information is sourced in the body. Please stop removing the information from the lead, you obviously do not have consensus as neither Arthur Rubin, nor I support the removal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not place articles with reliable sourcing up for speedy deletion, as you did with Chris Brand. That is in violation of numerous policies. If you wish to nominate a sourced article, please use WP:AFD. Jokestress (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's [http://groups.google.com/group/wikimania-dc-bid email list].
2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-dc/ wikimedia-dc] mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

----

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Hi, the edits mentioned are reverted based on what is discussed here Talk:Godhra_train_burning#Tehelka_Investigation. Could you please explain changes from your side or do you consider courts in India as Hindutva and those who have opinion otherwise as not Hindutva? What is this logic? I understand that I am not bracketed as Hindutva here.Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

----

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Seems people are passing judgments on others.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 22:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from leaving false accusations of "vandalism" in your edit summaries as you did regarding my responsible editing on the Catholic sex abuse cases article. Such comments don't do you any credit. If you feel that this matter requires discussion then please do so on the article's discussion page. Anglicanus (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not label edits such as [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Tehelka&diff=prev&oldid=440247673 this] as vandalism when reverting. Certainly POV and should be removed, but there is no reason to believe the edits were not made in good faith. I have instructed the user in question on using reliable sources and neutral point of view.

Also, am I correct to assume that User:Stunner16 is you as well? If so, you should state as such on your user page (or discontinue use of that account), so that you will not be in violation of WP:SOCK. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 13:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :Catholic sex abuse cases. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&diff=prev&oldid=445611548 This] edit was not a vandalism revert. You should not have called it vandalism in your edit summary. As I see you have been warned multiple times for this, I am blocking you. Please use the time to fully read WP:VAND and use the term correctly when you come back.

----

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude