User talk:Ukuphendukela

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

So[edit]

So long as you don't go round advocating for the repeal of child sex laws and arguing that child sex is perfectly OK, I see no reason you'll be blocked just for your attraction.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the explanation Paravant. - Shouniaisha (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Ukuphendukela!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

RW's had rough experiences with other people of a similar sexual status before, which probably explains the harsh welcome. Keep on good terms and I'm sure you'll thrive! Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the welcome! And, to be honest, I've kind of gotten used to now, so it really isn't that big of a deal (not to me at least). Also, I'll try my hardest not to suck-ass as an editor on RationalWiki! - Shouniaisha (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Semantics[edit]

Being a paedophile and a hebephile is a bit of a contradiction in terms isn't it? Aren't paedophiles exclusively attracted to underage children, whereas hebephiles are attracted to adolescents? Tielec01 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Great question, and I'll try to answer to the best of my ability. Pedophilia isn't really black and white, it lies on a spectrum. Some are exclusively attracted to children, while some may feel an attraction to children, but might primarily be attracted to adults of their own age. My attraction lies in both areas of ages, as well as older women. Also, one has to understand that the *philias encompasses a lot of ages and biological progressions, so all of those can be factors as well. - Shouniaisha (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Might be quicker to list who you aren't attracted to... What do you mean by "biological progressions"? Tielec01 (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Lol, it might. And, what I mean is, "growing up" (specifically puberty) isn't really black and white either. It's not like once your thirteen you suddenly grow a full bush and become a foot and a half taller. Of course not. It can vary drastically from person to person. - Shouniaisha (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Lately I've been getting into punk and folk"[edit]

Ah, but have experienced folk-punk? I think some Days N Daze a day does everybody some good, especially when chased down with Andrew Jackson Jihad or Johnny Hobo and the Freight Trains. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I haven't listened to that much folk-punk. But I'm gonna check out your recommendations! - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's one to start you off with, and another one for when that one's done. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I Gotta say, I'm not a huge fan of what I've heard from Johnny Hobo and the Freight Trains. That's not to say that they're terrible, it just seems kinda mediocre to me. However, both Days 'n' Daze as well as Andrew Jackson Jihad are definitely worth taking a longer listen to. I've only listened to People That Can Eat People and Rogue Taxidermy, but both were extremely promising. - Shouniaisha (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Johnny Hobo is OK, but it's an integral part of getting into Pat the Bunny's (aka: Johnny Hobo's) later and current works; that being that Johnny Hobo was a cynical, heroine addicted antagonist. Pat the Bunny these days (and his band Ramshackle Glory) touch on that and his going through rehab and trying to be a better person since then a lot. Gooniepunk (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

This user, on his user page states that he is "I'm a (self-diagnosed) pedophile and a hebephile". I am calling this out. I am a user who feels uncomfortable about having overt pedophiles on the board.

Obviously, @Gooniepunk and @Paravant have seen because they have commented here. I am just going to ping in @David Gerard, @-Mona-, @FuzzyCatPotato and @Queex.

Whilst @Paravant says it is OK as long as @Shouniaisha does not overtly advocate lowering the age of consent etcetera I feel there is still an element of normalization and condoning if we allow this. Wikipedia policy would be to ban users who do this on sight.

This does not sit right with me. I am going to open a COOP case and I am also going to archive this edit so whatever else you people do, denying you knew IS -NOT- going to be an option on the table. DaFuzz (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


Why are you so concerned about who an anonymous internet user is attracted to?

Signed, someone who thinks you should mind your own business

Chicken Coop Mandatory Notice[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. DaFuzz (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. They haven't even been around lately.
  2. They already know RW is not their forum for advocating pedophilia.
  3. They make no claims to have engaged in illegal acts with a minor.
As such, I see no real reason to disallow somebody to edit for admitting to their sexual attraction, albeit not one they should act on. If number 2 or three change, then and only then is action by the Wiki warranted. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your username[edit]

I've started a Coop case regarding your username: RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#User_using_the_Japanese_word_for_.22pedophile.22_as_their_username (permalink to initial complaint). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Username[edit]

Is there an alternative username that you could use? I have also emailed you on this. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for the delay. I'd rather my name be changed to Ukuphendukela, the Zulu word for revolution. Aisha (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Aisha
Done! oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Gerard thinks that you're a sock puppet trying to undermine RationalWiki[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1609888:

Hm, I was figuring Shouniaisha was Vordrak-related, but a Michaeldsuarez sock sounds far more plausible (one thing Vordrak doesn't have is even an ED level of humour). The account was really obviously set up for this sort of concern trolling and to manufacture a claim against RW - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

By "sock", he means "sock puppet". You might want to participate in the discussion in order to straighten things out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you do, you'll likely see that Michaeldsuarez has doxxed RW users in cold blood. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1610047:

===Block Japanese pedophile account too===
# I mean really - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Gerard is now proposing to have you banned from RationalWiki, too. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware what a sock puppet is, and I can assure you that I'm not a sock puppet. Nor for that matter am I a concern troll. I'm just what I say I am on my user page. I'm an anarchist, a pedophile, and a college student who is interested in history, anthropology, sociology, and sexology. And I'm sorry to all of you, I did not intend to make a ruckus on your website. You all have my sincerest apologies. - Ukuphendukela (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Listen I understand you are busy so what occurs on site while you are gone will most likely happen without your input because of your infrequency on this site. For now, assuning the paranoia isn't correct about you being some kind of plant, just try to complete the articles you have proposed already when you can. Everyone is just on edge because we have lost a couple moderators and several users from infighting and doxxing. This coop case will most likely be resolved without any action unless further evidence shows some malevolent behavior on your part.--Owlman (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Jeez, I didn't realize people took this website so freaking seriously. Sock puppets, doxxing, it's like fucking wartime man. And about the article, I think I bit off more than I can chew. I put up a banner that says others can edit it, but nobody's touched it (besides from changing the name the workspace is under). - Ukuphendukela (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)