Talk:Strap-on dildo/DYK Archive

This page is an archive of discussion from 2005, and should not be edited. Bushytails 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in DYK

why the hell is this page linked to on the front page of wikipedia!!???

I don't know why, but I'm quite amused because of that! :) hehe PenguinCDF 15:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's several reasons why it's linked here, the most notable of which is that it meets all of the guidelines for DYK articles. Sure, I may be slightly biased, but... It's >1000 chars (by a factor of 33), it's original, it's interesting, etc. Why do you feel it did not qualify as a DYK entry? Bushytails 17:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that a troll? Some people consider graphic sexual content unsuitable for the main page. It has nothing to do with the quality of the article. --squirrel 17:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There's always someone who finds some part of something unsuitable. For example, if a neutral article about israel were posted, people would claim it's offensive to palestine and was unsuitable for the main page. If content for the main page was filtered to prevent anyone from ever finding any of it unsuitable, it would be a very short page indeed. To make a possibly rather long argument short, some people finding it unsuitable does not make them right by virtue of their claim alone. Wikipedia tries strongly for a neutral point of view, and filtering the main page (the ultimate indtroduction to wikipedia for most people) to one group's point of view would be admitting failure (apologies to Khendon who said something very similar). Anyway, I tried to make the article reasonably neutral, and hope I did a reasonably good job. Thanks, Bushytails 18:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

squirrel, that is not policy. It would be NPOV to not include such a well-researched article on the front page. --Oldak Quill 20:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is outrageous!! My Redneck Games DYK submission was overlooked because it might have made America look bad, but this rubb9ish is linked to the main page?!!!!! It has both vulgar language, eg: "Cock", & is not suitable for many ages! I loathe the day Wikipedia lowers its standards & turns into a free porn site. Today my friends, I am loathing. Wikipedia should be ashamed of showing this rubbish on here, let alone linking it to the main page. It would be less offensive to myself if someone edited the swear words & external links on here, so as not to be vulgar & explicite... Spawn Man 21:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry words like "cock" cause your discomfort, however they are commonly used, and not just to refer to the male of many animal species. As to being free porn (and/or rubbish), my personal opinion (possibly biased) is that it's one of the better pages on strap-on dildos on the internet, and well illustrated. Thanks for your opinion, Bushytails 21:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

You do sound bias. Why not use penis or male genitals, or do you just like making Wikipedia disgusting? They are actually the real terms used, not some demeaning slang that people use to get get each other off. Wikipedia is not a porn site. I'll make them more PC myself if I have to, & you can't argue with me because no one other than you will argue with the removal of foul language off the fair Wikipedia. Question: If you like those terms so mch, do you mind if I call you a dick? Spawn Man 21:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry this word is a problem for you. It is not, however, a problem for everyone else on the planet, despite your claims. You'll note I did not use it in the article, and it is the actual name of the web site linked to, which is why I fixed it back after you changed it. Tell me, how does seeing the word "cock" in a link offend you? Does it insult you, your family, or anyone else? No, it's just a word as part of a name. As to "I'll make them more PC myself if I have to," wikipedia articles should be a neutral point of view, which you would be strongly breaking by pushing your relgigous/whatever point of view into the article. Thanks again, Bushytails 21:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

While I admit I find the inclusion of this on the main page rather ammusing, and find the subject matter somewhat "off-color", I also have to admit this is a well-written, well-constructed, factual, unbiased article. It makes good use of layout, pictures, hypertext, wiki-links, etc. If it wasn't for the fact that the subject matter doubtless makes a lot of people uncomfortable, I suspect this would be a banner article. The article itself is even fairly free of overt vulgarisms. It's worth pointing out that the entire world does not subscribe to the same set of taboos. Some cultures have no nudity taboo and consider sex a matter-of-fact, every-day thing. Who are we to say they're wrong? OTOH, it might be in the best interest of everyone to keep what will doubtless be a somewhat controvertial article off the main page. Consider that in many jurisdictions, material of a sexual nature is considered immoral or illegal. This might attract the wrong kind of a attention. Not an easy question to answer. --DragonHawk 21:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"well-written, well-constructed, factual, unbiased article" Thankies!! I worked hard on it.  :)

I'm not convinced keeping controversy off the main page is a good idea, though... I gave several examples on the main page's talk page about other controversial subjects that always cause select groups of people to get offended, and if we skipped anything controversial, there'd not likely be much on the page. As to legal issues, just about everything is illegal somewhere; should all photos of women showing their face be removed? What about all mentions of eating beef? It's not wikipedia's job to comply with any specific country's POV any more than any group's or individual's POV. Thanks again, Bushytails 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

Not only is it illegal in some states, but if it is show cased on Wikipedia's main page, then Wikipedia should have a required "Must Be 18 or Older To Enter" notice. Otherwise, wikipedia is in breach of pornographic material laws. If it has no profane language, which I have changed, & obvious links to pornographic sites, then it s legal. This is what the law states. Wikipedia could very well be sued if someone takes real offense to the article. I agree with Dragon Hawk, yes it is a well written & laid out article, & yes it is very informative, but under pornographic content law & due to the fact it is linked to the main page, then it is in breach. Just stating the truth.Spawn Man 22:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I will get permission to change the wording to the external link. If it hadn't been linked to the main page, then it would be fine. But it was & is under law. Do not presume you can continue to revert my edits to the language, unless you want wikipedia to be prosecuted. Spawn Man 22:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Such as parts like "A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing." And I don't know what the laws are in whichever part of the planet you're in, but I see no part of that which violates the law. Wikipedia is not responsible for complying with every country's laws; as I said above, should we also make sure all photos of women have their face covered, beef is never mentioned as a foodstuff, etc? Sorry, but your interpretation of the laws where you are is not relevant. As I'm not a lawyer, any further comments about legal action will be referred to other people. Until then, please do not try to force your particular religious/whatever POV onto neutral articles, as changes like that are pretty close to being considered vandalism. Thanks again, Bushytails 22:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

I never threatened legal action. I said if someone else did. And yes I am neutral. Neutral means that there should be no foul language or pornographic/explicit links. I couldn't care less if it was on the main page or what it's about. I don't even care you have diagrams. But as a Wikipedian, I will not stand by & let foul language be used on any article, even if it is the link's name. Spawn Man 22:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that made me laugh. Really, it did, out loud. Sorry, but your opinion on what is foul language, what is pornographic, or that either of those is wrong, is not a neutral POV. You have a POV that link titles should not contain the word "cock", even if that's the title of the web site they link to. You also have a POV that something is considered pornographic, and that this is somehow wrong. These are quite anti-neutral. Many, if not most people would disagree with you. The word "cock" as a definition for penis is in two of the three dictionaries I checked. Pornography is not wrong or illegal in most places. You are trying to push a very strongly non-neutral POV, yet you claim you're neutral. You may want to spend more time thinking about what your beliefs are and where they came from, as they are most definitely not neutral. Thanks again, Bushytails 22:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

I'm trying to stay as calm as a cucumber. But I'm tempted to reach through the screen & strangle you. Muahahahaaa..... Did your dictionaries have that cock is a slang word for the ACTUAL term, penis? You obviously don't like that word. Indeed, it does make many a man tremble at the knees for it to be muttered aloud. MAIN POINT I have another question. This is Wikipedia right? Correct. I'm not mistaken? Now what does Wikipedia aim to do? Be the best encyclopedia ever. Now Riddle Me This O' Person Who Has An Answer For Everything. I would like a copy of an encyclopedia that has pornographic links & foul language in it. Honestly, I will drop the whole thing if you find me a normal encyclopedia that under the article on "PENIS" refers to it as a "COCK". My guess would be zero Encyclopedias would have under the heading "PENIS" calling it a "CocK". Now do you see my point? I'm glad. Find me that copy & send it to this adress:

• • • idontcarecauseimright@supposedanti-neutral.net.org

I dare you, infact I double dare you. And yes, I still feel as cool as a cucumber in Columbia. (Try saying that one fast!!). Spawn Man 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Also note the Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. Gigs 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a good thing this article is about strap-ons and human sexuality, then, isn't it? I hate to break this to you, but the world is filled with terms you might not like. Real people use the word "cock" on a daily basis. To wit, "suck penis" finds 2.8 million results, while "suck cock" finds 5 million. If the quotes are used, penis falls to 96 thousand, while cock only falls to 3.7 million. Clearly, cock seems to be the term most people use (in the last test, by a factor of 37!) when referring to sucking cocks, and sucking strap-on cock is no different than sucking normal cock. As I said before, you're trying to push your own POV, and it's a minority POV at that judging from those numbers. You seem to have ignored where I asked what was wrong with the word "cock". Cock is a descriptive word, that attacks no sex, race, species, or other group. What makes it offensive? In any case, cock is the standard term used here, and is not considered offensive by anyone else. As to "pornographic links", I just checked all three links in the article, and did not see any porn at any of them. Have you actually gone to them? In any case, as much fun as I'm having, this discussion is using large amounts of talk page space to accomplish very little. My previous advice stands, think more about what your beliefs are and why you believe them, then think that other people might not always share them. And this will probably be my last comment on the subject. Thanks again, Bushytails 23:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

Sigh, that was going to be my last comment on the subject, but a few people let me know he was trying to get me blocked, by spamming their talk pages with comments like:

"How do I go about removing foul language on an article, if the creator, keeps reverting my edits? Can you block him? I've explained on the talk page of the article the laws surrounding it, but he wont listen. See Here & Here. I just want the foul language &/or the explicit external links removed. The article should be neutral, meaning it contains no foul language or pornographic links. Any help would be appreciated. Spawn Man 22:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)"

Oh well, guess I'll have to waste more time and go through that point by point.

• There is no "foul language" in the article; you are objecting to the (correct) title of a non-offensive external link.
• "keeps" means "once".
• They can, but I'd gamble they won't.
• I've explained why your "laws" were incorrect and/or irrelevant, and chose not to listen, which I explained as well.
• There's no foul language to remove.
• There are no explicit links, and never have been. All the sites linked to contain no pornography, and are how-to articles on the subject.
• The article is neutral; you are trying to make it non-neutral by altering or removing things that disagree with your point of view. Neutral does not mean what you're claiming it means. Please read up on what neutral actually means. In fact, neutral isn't even related to what you're claiming it means. Please enlighten us as to how "neutral" means "no foul language or pornographic links." I could see how "agrees with my POV" means that, but not how "neutral" means that.

And this hopefully will be the last thing I have to say on the subject. Thanks for reading, Bushytails 00:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey folks: (1) I suggest you both take a few deep breaths and step back for a bit. This has gone from from "open discussion" to "intense debate" and now "personal attacks". That will do no-one any good. (2) Spawn Man, I would suggest that you stop assuming that any given culture's taboos or laws are universal. Wikipedia is not limited to the USA or even Western culture. Even within a single U.S. state, laws and cultural norms can and do vary. (3) Bushytails, while it's nice to envision Wikipedia as a free-thinking utopia where all points of view are equally welcomed, Wikipedia exists in a world full of real people, not all of whom will agree with you. One can employ discretion and tact without self-censorship. Also, while Wikipedia is world-wide, many Wikipedia servers are hosted in the USA, and various local laws may apply, complicating things. If careful presentation and phrasing can avoid a legal quagmire, or even just an edit war, that's usually the way to go. --DragonHawk 00:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; why I said about 3 comments ago I wasn't planning on commenting more... The last comment was just because a few people let me know he was trying to get me blocked with that bit of spam there. I found it funny.  :) Thanks, Bushytails 00:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

(You're Lying) No one contacted you, your talk page didn't have any, neither did your history.

I'm extremely calm. Bushytail is the one who's getting hypo & making uncalled for personal attacks. Secondly, I was asking personal friends who are admins what the next course of action was. It was not spamming, I was asking for advice. Infact, I ask advice for nearly every tricky issue. The , "can you block him..." comment was merely a question asking if that would be the next cause of action. I'm sorry if you saw it as an actual request for you to be blocked over this meaningless issue. After all, a bit of good debate is nothing to block over, & is infact crucial to our survival as a species. My only point, & quite a few people in the past & present agree with me, is that crude language or external links are unnacceptable & should either be corrected, or deleted. You can't argue with that. For example, if I was to swear like a trooper on some well known articles, or add porn site or "Buy Plastic Dildos Now" sites, (Like is on here), it would be reverted & I'd probably be blocked.

Don't mistake my offense to the swear word "cock" as an offense to your article. Your article should indeed be included in the Wikipedia world, as it is an actual object. My offense is that the swear word is being used on an article, no matter what article. If another swear word was on another article, say the article cheese, I would remove it instantly. Just because there was a site, lets say "mother%$&^s like to eat cheese.org" on the cheese article, I would either,

• 1, Delete it altogether, even though it has to do with cheese, it is still useless to the article & although it may not contain pornographic material, is still rude & explicit.

• 2, Rename it, mainly because it should still be included. Even if it isn't the file name. For example, on numerous articles there are external links that state what the site has, eg, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strap-on_dildo&action=edit&section=2 Lengthy debates on whether the swear words should be allowed.] Where as you're going for this approach, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strap-on_dildo&action=edit&section=2 Talk:Strap on dildo action editsection 2]- Debates on whether swear words should be allowed. It just doesn't matter whether cock is more widely used than penis, morals morals morals!! No swear word should be allowed on wikipedia unless it's on its own article. Spawn Man 01:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I'm sick of talking to you too.

You don't strike me as calm. "can you block him...", in English, is not a question asking if that would be the next cause of action; denotationally, it's asking if they can block him, and in common usage would be a request to block him. As for the word itself, it might not be appropriate on an article on cheese, but it's more appropriate on an article on dildos. Using the exact title gives information to the reader that any other title wouldn't give them. The webpage may use vulgar language, but it's certainly not pornographic (tending to sexual arousal) and certainly not obscene in US legal usage.--Prosfilaes 01:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I am calm, slowly decreasing however. Although unlike some people, I actually have morals. Although some may say I'm like a fanatical Christian, I'm not. I'm proud to be a normal Christian who has morals. I couldn't care less about what gays or lesbians do in their own life, but wikipedia isn't a swear juke box. I'm ashamed to be a wikipedian right now, with this filth lying all over the place. I'm walking away now, hopefully one of the admins I contacted will do something. You ca have your filthy language & links. I'm walking away knowing that I'm the better person & I tried to make things better. I'm happy inside with myself for trying. And gosh be darned, if I don't get a cool as a cucumber award for this, I might say a really bad word....Tarter sauce. MUAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...... Have a nice life & I hope you're happy with your foul language.... PARTING THOUGHT Karma, what goes around comes around matey potatey!!=). Spawn Man 01:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, must the pointless debate go on longer? As multiple people, not just myself, have pointed out to you, your "morals" are a POV that is not shared by everyone else. If anything, your morals are offensive to my morals, as yours involve forcing your POV on others. It's also not a swear word unless you apply it to someone; as part of a name, it's just that, a name. You're also creating a straw man argument by creating a ridiculous example for basically vandalism, both to cheese and your adding random swear words to unrelated articles. A better argument would be if it was appropriate for cheese to link to an article about "milking tits", where teats would be the "proper" name that the article's authors decided not to use. Please don't bother with strawmen; they're transparent to everyone. And as to your spam, your explanation remarkably doesn't agree with how anyone else read it. Oh, and please respond to what people say, rather than repeating yourself. Lastly, the only reason I'm not completely calm is I'm too busy laughing. Thanks again, Bushytails 01:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

Make all the personal attacks you want. Plus I read your replies & my so called "Spamming", & noticed of the 5 adimns I contacted, 2 replied in my support, while the other 3 didn't reply at all. You are the only one who has a problem. See here to fix it, (:)), just a little joke of course, or is it?...Mysterious pause.... Gooooooooodbye buddy, may out paths never meet again.... Spawn Man 01:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No smart retorts? Suits me! Spawn Man 02:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my being queer (trans and lesbian, that makes me queer^2!) makes me immoral and dirty, Spawn Man. Though having the article on DYK has been more trouble than it was worth, I applaude Bushtails in authoring a rather thorough article. He should write more, he seems to have a gift for it.65.95.59.244 03:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay....? I never said I disliked gays or neither did I call anyone "queer". Infact, most Christians think gays are evil etc. Do not lump me in with them. I infact support gays in their abilities; I am not anti gay. Quite the opposite really. Research who you're talking before making broad judgements. Plus you are probably a sock puppet, Bushtails in disguise. See sock puppets on wikipedia & see if anything rings a bell?... Spawn Man 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking through Spawn Man's user page, it seems as though he's a sock puppet for LordAmeth. Speculation of course, but the two do like to backslap and nominate each other for adminship it seems. Furthermore, here's a choice quote of a couple things he claims he hates: "..really opinionated people, really fanatical people..." A bit hipicritical don't you think? 65.27.72.14 17:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you've taken a liking to my talk page. I am most certainly not a sockpuppet for LA. He & I are good friends, plus only I nominated him for his amasing work on here. I have a while to go before I am nominated. Besides, he & I have different topics, his Japan, mine various. I do not count myself as fanatical, just stating what is in the wiki rule book. By "Really opinionated people" I mean people who are more opinionated than myself. Call me a hipicrite. I don't care. I'm above this right now. It's getting bored & tedious fighting for morals. Good day. Spawn Man 06:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. If you are 65.95.59.244, tell me, when did you get so angry? I mean, stop with the personal attacks, you're showing yourself to be a child.

"...who has morals. I couldn't care less about what gays or lesbians do in their own life" Sawwies hun, this totally implied it, maybe I just read it wrong. I sure as hell hope I'm not Bushytails. You guys should have told me I'm him before I posted :P. 65.95.59.244 04:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you admit you read it wrong. "I'm proud to be a normal Christian who has morals. I couldn't care less about what gays or lesbians do in their own life, but wikipedia isn't a swear juke box." meant that, I couldn't care less what they do...who am I to judge them? I infact support them where other people don't. So don't start accusing me of hating gays. I was implying that I have morals towards not swearing. Not that gays were bad, which they are not. Besides, it is totally off the subject. So stop accusing me of stuff. Brass off basically, until you have factual evidence against me....Which you'll never find... cause there isn't any. Spawn Man 07:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing sentence: NPOV?

Is the final sentence

The best practice is to try everything and see what's fun!

not in breach of the policy on WP:NPOV? It's presenting the use of these, erm, implements as not merely acceptable but to be encouraged -- that's what "best practice" means. That, I submit, is a point of view; as much a point of view as the one the original author refuted in the DYK firestorm. Wooster 21:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This whole article stinks of the irrifutable stench of breaches, such as with the swearing. However, yes I agree that this is a POV. Ways we can tell, because the author thinks that the most important thing is to have fun. Others might think other things should be more important. I agree, delete the POV. DELETE, DELETE, *Raises Pitchfork*....... Spawn Man 07:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Although there are probably more cases of POV and unencyclopedic style (such as the subject of this section), the only breach, among the many breaches you've supposedly found, that you've ever told us about is the supposed foul language, which is not used in the text of the article, but in the title of an externally linked article. Pretending that the title of this article were different would be quite unencyclopedic. To reiterate my most important query, please tell us about all the other problems you appear to be claiming to have found. (Preferrably in a new section, to keep things intelligible.) EldKatt (Talk) 15:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it. Its not really POV, but rather unencyclopedic, its not a brochure for strapons. The Minister of War 10:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sucking strapped-on cock

Do we really need to know to suck strapped-on cock in a link? Whatever about fellatio itself (sucking cock is no problem) a link about sucking strapped-on cocks is a bit OTT, IMHO. Oh and BTW the pictures need relocating. They are shifting all over the place. (Perhaps they need to be strapped onto the page!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As I've made comments numerous times above, this is way OTT. See posts above to see how much trouble you're gonna have trying to delete it though, E.G. Think of trying to delete it compared to drilling through solid concrete, with an eyelash! Spawn Man 23:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've no problem with a reference to sucking cock. Sucking a strapped-on cock seems like such an . . . em . . . waste. It is a bit like trying to wash in oil. Why bother? What is the point? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking from experiance, humiliation aside, there is actually a point. It's the same point as what a woman gets out of USING a strap-on in the first place. It's not just for the "fuckee". With each thrust, oral or otherwise, you're pushing and rubbing against it. Particlarly fun if it's the vibrating type.

It's not something I'm in to, but it's a relatively common activity. I could write a better paragraph about it and remove the external link, but it's not something I'm really competent to write about, as I too see no purpose in the activity... however, it's a common activity, so the page would be incomplete without it. The people I've met who either like to suck strap-on cock or like their strap-on sucked usually talk about power exchanges, humilliating a man by having him suck cock, etc... which is a part of the activity I'm not interested in and don't know much about.  :)

Short version, it's an important topic, so if the link is to be removed a good paragraph about it needs to be written, and since the link covers the topic just fine, and gives how-to information, I don't see any reason to remove it.

As to the photos... I haven't seen any formatting problems with them; what exactly is happening? Thanks, Bushytails 01:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC).

When there are two close together, the lower one is shown in the middle of the text. They may need a line or two extra between them. As to the sucking strapped-on cock, I must imagine that I never thought of it before. I suppose it might have some appeal, though wouldn't it be kinda dead compared to the real thing? Though I suppose it would be the ultimate in safe sex!!! lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As in, stairstepping? the lower one is shown further to the left than the top one? or?

What it does here, when they're too close together, is it just lines them all up on the right side in a nice column... Thanks again, Bushytails 01:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC).

Perfect description. Yup stairstepping. Somehow the image of dildos, cocks and stairstepping is wrecking my mind now!!!

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, you both make me sick. Sick I tell you, sick! 01:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawn Man (talk • contribs) 20:32, 20 October 2005

If all you have is an emotional reaction, why don't you leave this article alone?--Prosfilaes 01:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Could it be a new definition of Penis envy? lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Because.. & no, I don't have PEnvy. Spawn Man 03:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Dildo dreams then? lol :-) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Just nightmares caused by seeing too many stupidos on here... *cough*... & I would suggest you stop harrassing me too. Spawn Man 05:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it not a bit ironic that you are so offended by sexual references, yet you use the username spawn which is also used in some cultures as a informal word for sperm? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it strange your head looks like one? BTW: Spawn man is a comic book character.... Spawn Man 23:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)... P.S. I'd stop harassing me.

In response to your P.S., you're not really giving him a good reason. Please read WP:NPA and Two wrongs make a right (fallacy). EldKatt (Talk) 12:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

And so, Spawn Man, to stop usage of informal sexual terms, you then raise the issue of head!!! Ever heard of the (non-sexual) term "when in a hole, stop digging." FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, heard the term, "One must delve into one's self proclaimed self being to proclaim the self proclaimation of his self being & in doing so will be rewarded by being blessed with self being & proclamations beyond one's self". Spawn Man 11:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)