User:Atomaton/archive02

sexual identities

i beg to differ, polyamorous and swinger are sexual identities, allthoughth they are not sexual orientations, they are identities, i myself am polyamorous and it is very much my sexual identitiy! ill put those back fro the mean timeQrc2006 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I am polyamorous also. It is not sexual identity, it is a relationbship type, as apposed to Polyandry, Polygamy and Monogamy. Also relationship types. I won't argue that there is not sex within those relationship structures, however I would not call that "identity". Please refer to various sources for the definition of "sexual identity" and you will sess they refer to a persons gender identification more than anything else. Swinging is not an identity either, but rather also a kind of relationship structure. I'll discuss this in more detail later, when I have more time. Atom 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks, i put them back in under other, so as to not label them identities specifcially, i think they are important to mention in this boxQrc2006 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Si do can write what ever i want!!

Removing useless images

Hi! FYI, I base my comments and removal on many precedents by Jimbo and other longtime editors. Jokestress 04:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your effort to communicate. I'm a bit frustrated that you didn't just discuss it with me before doing three reverts. I edit pretty much exclusively sexology and sexuality articles, probably more than any other editor. Many of them have pictures. I understand that there is discussion right now at higher levels regarding non-censorship versus explicit images, expecially photographs versus drawings. I've been working on negotiating this very point with a variety of people about the image on the masturbation article, and I put in, and am an advocate of the current klimt drawing, over the more explicit images suggested in the talk pages. This kind of dicussion comes up often in the articles I edit. If there were more well defined policies regarding those, I would follow them.

What I'm not sure I understand is why you don't think any of the images depicts the act mentioned. They are all of oral sex, and several of them clearly are deep enough to likely be deep throat.

In my opinion, you should have left the image after I reverted back, discussed it, and as I asked for in the talk pages, get opinions of several other people. Then, after consensus, move accordingly. Forcing your view over the view of several others just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In that spirit, I will leave the image alone until we can get more consensus, or a better picture.

What exactly do you think would be an ideal image to act as a good visial lead for the this article?

Regards,

Atom 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd either need a side view image or illustration to make a picture worth including. Please see Anus talk page for an incredibly long and contentious discussion on inclusion of photographic images, and keep in mind that's not even a sex act. You are right that there are no clear guidelines, but that picture is just bad, in terms of both quality and usefulness. Sorry if I seemed rash, but that article gets a lot of vandalism, so I tend to be bold when reverting. That's neither the first nor last image added there. Jokestress 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Argentine National Gendarmerie

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid we haven't worked through our differences at all. I have simply not edited the article since the original problem, since I have no desire to get into a revert war with such an apparently arrogant individual as the other party. The issues remain. I do not believe that everything needs to be translated into (frequently poor) English. Titles of agencies, departments, ranks etc are far better and more useful to the reader in the original language, with translations if necessary. -- Necrothesp 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What changes do you feel are need for the article to be of better quality? Atom 01:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My main objection is that I copyedited the article for style and English, and giving precedence to the original Spanish titles of branches, positions and ranks, but Mesoso simply mass reverted everything I'd done because he disliked the use of Spanish. -- Necrothesp 10:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the description of "an apparently arrogant individual" is entirely unreasonable and uncalled-for, and this sort of attitude can only cause difficulties.

One can not say I dislike the use of Spanish any more than one can say Necrothesp dislikes the use of English. I try to use Spanish where appropriate and English where appropriate. The idea I "dislike" Spanish is untrue & entirely without evidence.

As far as this idea of my "mass revert" is concerned, I would like to know what i reverted that does not relate directly to the current debate. The current version, as I last left it, includes much of Necrothesp's editing, but not those edits for which I have given explicit explanations.

Mesoso 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from both of you for your comments regarding the article. I read the latest talk on the article and it seems we can proceed as described there, and see how it goes. Atom 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not dislike English. I am English. But I do think that Spanish titles should take precedence in an article about an organisation in a Spanish-speaking country. I think it is more useful to the reader for them to do so. As far as "mass reverting" is concerned, you reverted almost everything I had added[1], even where those edits were pure copyedits. I'm sorry if you think my comment about arrogance was unreasonable and uncalled for, but I think it's a fair comment following your comments on the article's talk page and your utter refusal to accept that Wikipedia policy does not actually support your line on language. You didn't seem willing to discuss anything whatsoever, refused to accept evidence that opposed your arguments, and were on the verge of beginning a revert war. However, I would rather reach a compromise than argue so I shall do as Atom suggests and re-edit the article. -- Necrothesp 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You both has expressed opinions about things that have happened in the past. I can appreciate how frustrating it must be, from either perspective. I know I have been in similar situations. Perhaps I am overly optomistic, and I didn't go throuth the process both of you have. But, you've both gotten to express your feelings, and I know we are primarily concerned about the quality of the article, not rehashing past events. I'm working on the assumption of WP:AGF, and I believe both of you have shown a good faith effort towards making the article better. In the interests of WP:civil, let's turn from tha past towards finding a consensus vision for the article. 11:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I am only interested in producing good, informative articles, not warring with other users, and I'm sure Mesoso wants the same. -- Necrothesp 12:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mesoso, could you review the latest edit, and suggest areas that you feel need changing, before we proceed to an edit from your perspective? Thanks Atom 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Penis Size (good revert)

Good call reverting my latest edit to my previous edit. Was trying to make it less wordy but actually did the opposite. I blame it on staying up too late, heh. Well just wanted to say I actually agree with someones revert for once. --Wits 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help on police brutality

Well, the headline says it all, I guess. I hated working unilaterally but couldn't drum up any interest. I possibly should have requested comments some time ago. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I think we have a workable solution. If you don't find time to get to those references, eventually someone will. In the mean time, I think it looks a bit better. Atom 00:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting external links on Female dominance

What part of WP external links guidelines is dansfemdomlinks.com violating? It is a large directory of highly relevant links and it is not a commercial site, and it does not contain excessive advertising. Why did you delete it? Also, why do you keep putting up a commercial site Femdom Cartoon with stolen copyrighted images in it's place? user:ClarkKent22

Hi ClarkKent22. Thanks for asking, I am happy to explain, and double check to be sure that my judgement was correct.

I just took another look at the web site "dansfemdomlinks.com". I edit a great number of sexolgy and sexuality articles on wikpedia. I see people putting in links to their favorite places all of the time. IN this case, it looks like a very interesting site. However, right off the bat, there are links to Pro Dommes and banners for commercial sites all over the place. Wikipedia standards that apply to this are: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. " and also, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Just because a web site is related in some way to the topic, does not mean that it needs to be listed here. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to collect links. For the web site to be properly linked, there would need to be text in the article that was directly related to important points in the article, and then there would be a citation to the web site as the source of that information. But, that information would need to be accurate and verifiable, and not just opinion, or original research.

So, I'm sorry to say that as interesting as that site is (and I am a big fan of FemDommes) it is not what we would consider to be an appropriate external link. Regards to you, Atom 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am new to wikipedia, at least as a contributor, so I might be wrong, but I have to disagree with you there. Wikipedia:External_links specifically mentions that linking to relevant directory pages is permissible, and while the site in question does contain links to commercial sites as well as free sites, those are not paid advertisements. The site simply links to any page related to female domination, free or commercial and it has more such links than any other directory I know of. There are only a handfull of paid banners on the site, far less than on many other sites that are happily linked from wikipedia in many other articles, so that can hardly qualify as "objectionable amount of advertising". Also, you don't seem to be reading the guidelines correctly. The site does not have to be directly referenced in the article, in fact such sites should not be linked in External Links section but in References section - see the point 1 in What should be linked to: "Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links." User:ClarkKent22

reverted addition of useful weblinks to circumcision article

Hi there! You just reverted my addition of two weblinks to the Opposing circumcision links section in the circumcision article stating in your revert comment "wikipedia not a colleciton of web links". Which is true but that is a links section headlined "Opposing circumcision" and those are useful links for concerning that very headline. So your revert was inappropriate, which I don't take personal, but please explain yourself in the discussion. 87.78.150.238 14:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your question. Actually, I removed ALL of the extraneous web links, not just one position. If there is useful information in the web links, that info should be brought into the article, and cited properly. If it is supporting information in the article, it should be in the references section, and meet Wikipedia guidelines regarding NPOV, NOR and Verifiability. Often someone uses an external web link to a highly POV article (sometimes just someone opinion, sometimes citable data) because they can't get away with putting it in the article. As this is an encylopedia, and not a colleciton of web links, I removed ALL of the external links. Thanks again. Atom 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to Sexually mutilated child contains links to graphical content which cannot be cited and which is totally NPOV (more in quality than anyone could ever sustain without becoming opposed to circumcision) and needs no verification and it shows the facts of what circumcision is in a totally graphical and NPOV way. Therefore I consider your revert POV pushing vandalism. 87.78.150.238 15:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I'm sorry that you feel the way that you do. I Assume Good Faith. In your case, I was not critical of your desire to add what you feel is useful information. I am trying to enforce Wikipedia Policy. In fact, there are numerous examples of the policy not being enforced properly. The one you cite seems to be one. I edit sexology and sexuality articles, and am part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality. My focus is therefore often in that area, and so have not been aware of the example you gave. Even though there may be many articles that do not follow the policies closely does not mean that others should not meet those policies. This article just happened to be withing the sexology and sexuality area that I focus within.

There is some leeway for putting some external links that are directly relevant to an article, as long as they do not disturb the balance of the NPOV of the article, and they are sites with verifiable information (not opinion/original research). In this case, in my opinion, the number of external links just seemed to be a projection of the ongoing pro/con circumcision debate on the talk page. If you disagree with my judgement call, which I respect, I am happy to discuss it and find a compromise or consensus with others. Perhaps the three or four links you added (and I am not sure what they contained) made the entire section of external links just too large. Atom 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I added only two links and you know it. And one of them is necessary because it contains links to graphical content which displays what circumcision is. So look there www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org and find out yourself if you think the link is useful. But deleting the whole link section is simple vandalism, and it happened the moment I added two (that's 2) useful links. That makes me suspicious to say the very least and I think you should reconsider your actions. 87.78.178.111 15:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the links. I don't have any idea which "side" of the argument you may be on. You could very well be supporting views that I agree with, I don't know, but that isn't the point. The content of the links you added had nothing to do with what I talk about above. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a collection of links. When you added a few new links (two or three) I noticed that and reverted, and then removed all the web links.

If there is content on a web site that is not acceptable on Wikipedia, then the web link is not acceptable either. Deleting the whole link section is consistent with Wikpedia policy of not collecting links. This particular article is not an article against circumcision, nor is it one supporting circumcision. It is supposed to address the subject in a neutral and scientific manner, with all facts either pro or con supported by verifiable information, per wikipedia policy.

If you have useful information that will improve the article and make it better, then please add it to the pertinent section, or add a new section, add the content, and support it with citations that meet Wikipedia standards. External web links are not provided so that you can add content that doesn't meet the standards for normal inclusions, it is for referencing web based material that DOES meet the wikipedia standards for No Original Research, and Verifiability in support of facts discussed in the article. Atom 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am opposing circumcision personally and I believe that DOES matter. The link www.sexuallymutilatedchild.com presents NPOV about circumcision in a way words never can. If anyone can watch the video links provided on that page and still not be opposing circumcision he has to be a monster. That's all I have to say. I will leave this whole mess of an edit war now. Larry Sanger was right in stating that trolls have taken over wikipedia. But the trolls have not won, only Wikipedia has lost. 87.78.149.196 15:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lion page editing

I must take issue with your categorization of my deletion of the text on the lion page as "vandalism." Although you refer to the action being "against consensus," in reading the lion talk page it seems to me that there is far from a consensus that the passage is worthy of inclusion in the article itself. I will not revert the edit back to the way it was, but please understand that there is not a consensus on that issue as there are a number of opposing views on the subject. I will continue to present my own view on the talk page rather than reverting the edit but I do not consider what I did to be vandalism. Thank you. 149.79.54.95 15:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume good faith on your part. I gave you a blanking warning because you blanked an entire controversial section with no previous discussion on the talk page. I did not mean to offend you, only to warn you that your actions were not the proper method for expressing your disagreement.

I am participating in the discussion on the talk page, because we are trying to reach a consensus. I responded to the RfC to assist in that. So far, we had come to an agreement (cautious, and still new) that the wording being used (the whole section that you blanked) was finally acceptable to all parties participating in the discussion.

Perhaps you can see that when you came along and blanked that section, after many people had agreed to the wording, you upset the balance, and basically steppe don the toes of all of the people who agree with you, as well as the ones who do not agree with you. I think is is perfectly fair for you to not agree with some of the things in the article. But, if you want it changed, you need to go through discussion on the talk page and get other to agree. An alternative might have been for you to edit that section to your liking and suggest that as a compromise that everyone could live with. But given the RfC and active discussion, in this case discussing it first might have been better for that also.

I hope that you will participate with us in finding wording that improves the quality of the article, while being comfortable for all of the participants. Atom 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision

I apologize for some people's speed to jump on your case - and my use of popups was not mean to infer vandalism, just a fast way to restore the links. I also notice that it seems you're unfamiliar with the history of the article.

The issue with Circumcision is that it's not : "nor is it one supporting circumcision" - right now it is supporting circumcision. It's missing significant ammounts of information - specifically about the long term disincentives for circumcision, while listing every dubious benefit. It also neglects to cite many of the criticisms of the studies that show those dubious benefits - sometimes because they're so new (like the Auvert "60% protection from AIDS" study, that was severely methodologically flawed, as well as cut short).

Most of us, like myself, that oppose non-voluntary non-theraputic circumcision (i myself am a victim of such) merely want the article unbiased - it's currently pro-circ biased in sections and neutral in others. The biggest offending section is the one I mentioned above. Jakew is the single most prolific censor of edits to increase NPOV standards compliance in existance. He abuses the rules (like citing a rule that doesn't actually apply to something, or saying something fails that rules standards when it doesn't) to maintain the pro-circumcision POV in the article. He also will insist that studies that show circumcision to be unneccesary are being miscited when used to show things (like the foreskin being the most highly innervated part of the human penis), etc when they are properly being cited. He is a POV warrior with a long history of frustrating editors who attempt to balance the article. Lordkazan 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have been watching some of the discussion for a short period of time. It is clear to me that there is a great deal of controversy in this article. It is not my desire to take any sides. It is my desire to try and make the article a quality article, with appropriate citations. In order to remain NPOV, we need to fairly represent the perspectives (backed by appropriate citations, not just opinion) and not try to censor or omit any perspective. I haven't made any judgement about the balance of POV, and I'm not sure that offering one would offer clarity, or make the article better. I myself am circumsized, and have no problem with that. I recognize that prevailing medical opinion (in most places) is against circumcision as a general rule, unless there is some other medical necessity. However, many people feel that circumcision is appropriate. Some, like yourself, feel that parental decision in the matter is not appropriate, and it should be left to the individual. I have no opinion on that, other than existing cultures have current rules that they operate on, for better or worse. This article should not be a platform for changing cultural opinions on either perspective, but should present the facts as neutrally as possible, and let people decide for themselves how those facts affect them in their culture, with their mutiplicity of rules, mores and values. Atom 16:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the *article* should be NPOV, which is why i'm trying to get Jakew to stop censoring medical information he disagrees with. Lordkazan 16:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that if you add information to the article, and give a valid citation (per wikipedia policies) that I will back you up whetehr I agree with the information or not. My concerns are the quality of the article, and not a particular perspective. We should let both of you, and others with other perspectives, state those pespectives and back them up with facts. Atom 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lordkazan 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Warnning - Dasondas has admitted intent to pov-push Lordkazan 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Semen

Stop reverting the semen picture on the couch. Removing a poor joke is not censorship. A more scientifc picture can be easily used. user:71.224.108.41

Please review the talk pages. This has been talked about many times. You will see in those pages that I am asking for a scientific photo of semen in a cup, along aide a microscope image of that. We have discussed and come to consensus that the existing photo is fine until we have a better one. It is just semen on a brown background, not something pornographic. Again, please read the talk pages before criticizing me for enforcing the policy that we have all agreed to.

Here is a few excerpts.

"I think we need a better photo. I think that having a dual photo of human semen in a petri dish on the left, and a microsopic picture (of semen, not just sperm) on the right would be a great lead picture. Atom 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)"

"Anonymous users keep removing the image, despite what appear to be consensus on the discussion page and wikipedia policy (Wikipedia is Not Censored). I've reluctant to readd the image because of the 3RR, so can an administrator step in and make the situation clear? --Darksun 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)"

See Consensus_on_images Vote was 5 votes for "keep both images" and none against.

"See consensus discussion above. linkimage is for images that are sexually explicit. This image is of semen, not people having intercourse. We are looking, waiting for a better photo, but this will do for now. Atom 02:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)"

So, if you disagree, please participate in the discussion, and offer a reasonable and rational argument, rather than reverting after many other people have come to a consensus on the issue. Atom 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

Hi Atomaton.

I just wanted to mention that you might find WP:TT helpful if you want to warn users about specific things in the future. Sometimes, I find warnings that specifically refer to what policies were broken are more helpful than generic vandalism warnings in certain situations.

Anyhow, happy editing! -- Where 02:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate your tips. In this case I had discussed the specifics already many times in the talk pages of the article itself. Atom 02:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Atomaton, I'm not a new user even though my contributions are a little bit poor. I only wrote some useful and brief articles on Uruguayan geography, most of which were read by native speakers and corrected in the way they considered more appropriate. My aim is to keep in touch with people from USA, UK, Canada and other English-speaking countries. As you may notice I'm a Spanish native speaker, born and raised in Uruguay, South America but living in Catalonia, Spain (near the border with Andorra and France). Among my interests are American and English literature, language, American culture and geography, etc. I study English linguistics at college, in order to become a teacher someday..ah.. and by the way, I'm 20 years old. In the Spanish wikipedia, I wrote a large list of American authors from Beecher Stowe, Douglass, Chopin, Smith, Garrison Lloyd and Bradstreet to Rowlandson (most of them are translated from English into Spanish). Right now, I'm writing about Canadian territories and provinces, and about the American State of Idaho. William Shakespeare is the most important I've ever written before, and also has a star :) Well, that's all for now and sorry if you report some terrible spelling mistakes (sometimes I don't know how to write or in which way I should do it). I hope you can help me in my stay and let me feel comfortable in this wonderful experience, being my second place in wikipedia (after the Spanish one) and my third home. Kind regards,--Gustavo86 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

re proxies

Hi Atom, that was great work tracking down those proxies at Perverted-Justice.com, did you follow up by posting them to WP:OPP? Herostratus 08:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perverted Justice comment

I think you placed your comment in the wrong section. It's unclear what you're responding to. Lagringa 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Intentional?

Hi - was this intentional? The reason I ask is that you seem to have deleted two links, both of which are working fine - at least for me. I can see good reasons for removing the text, but I wanted to check. Best wishes, Jakew 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I checked just now and they both work! I put it back, as they seem to work fine now. Must have been me!? Atom 16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A "bad link day", perhaps? :-) Nice work on the rest of the article, BTW: good to know the article's weak spots. Jakew 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of 'Man_masturbates.jpg' from the 'Masturbation' article.

Hello. You've reverted my inclusion of a picture perfectly suitable for the section 'Masturbation techniques -> Male'. While I'm aware of the debate going on in the article's talk page, the page is far too cluttered and unorganized for me to debate (although I have said something, under 'Real picture'). I'm not going to pointlessly revert your removal, so I'm going to paste what I've already said on the talk page.

There really is nothing to debate. Wikipedia's policy is to not censor things like this. It doesn't matter if you're offended by real penises. If it's relevant, then it belongs here, social taboos be damned. I don't mean to come across as an asshole, but it's simply ridiculous to keep removing images of real penises in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored --AnonymousOrc 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The image in question displays the technique described by the text. It makes no sense to NOT include it.

Thank you for reading. Hopefully you'll consider replying. User:AnonymousOrc 11:09, 2 October 2006

Hi! Sorry for a delay in response. I mean no insult to you, and your image looks very instructive. There are a variety of factors taking place that caused my editorial decision to remove the image you added.

• You added the image without discussing it on the talk page first. In some Wikipedia articles, people adding and changing things as they want to works fine. On the Masturbation article, and other articles, like Circumcision and Anus, for whatever reason, changes to images are always controversial. People who choose to participate in that watch the talk page and discuss changes in images. It is not at all uncommon for a Wikipedia user, or editor to take a photo of themselves and drop it on the page, unasked for. This disrupts what sometimes can be a delicate balance for people on that article. That is the case here, in the masturbation article. In fact, look at the talk page and you will see a long discussion on the topic, with many people suggesting and recommending images they prefer. Consider that when you drop your image in there, out of the blue, after many others have been discussing what images best improve the quality of the article, you step on lots of toes. There have been several other people who have put their, similar, image forward for use. The discussion of which of these images best meets the quality of the article is an editorial decision requiring consensus of many people.

• Because of the above issue, and others, we have a preliminary set of guidelines that are under development for the use of images in sexology and sexuality articles. I am a participant in the Sexology and Sexuality Project, and edit hundreds of articles in this area on a regular basis. Controversy about images is very common in this part of Wikipedia. Please see our discussion, and feel free to contribute at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines.

• • The guidelines that you stepped on could perhaps be "No images created by, or including, Wikipedia editors", or "Use only the image that best illustrates the point" or "Additional images should add additional information", or "Existing images shouldn't be replaced without a consensus".

I'm not telling you that you must abide by someone elses guidelines (although we would value your participation). But, if you should follow the guidelines, you will enjoy the support of many other people when someone tries to replace your image with another image. (somewhat in the manner that you did -- other have put their image there, and are under debate on the talk page)

At the very least, if you were to choose to disregard the guidelines, you would find three other people who have put their image ther before you who would argue with you that their own image was the best for the article.

Atom 16:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Meetup October 29, one o'clock, Mall of America. Jonathunder 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ménage à trois

Please discuss on Talk:Ménage à trois. I think valid criticism against your edit was made, and one thing that people haven't mentioned so far -- the edit is not NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the talk page if you want my discussion. As I said there, the section is directly related to "ménage à trois", it is a notable person, and a valid citation. Please revert your revert, and next time read the talk page first, if you would. Atom 01:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with an article dispute

I saw that you were part of wikipedia's sexuality project I though you might be able to help, I'm basically in an edit war with another editor over the article Frot at this point we've stopped even discussing on the talk page.

I was against the new section (Frot in the Construction of a Masculine Gay Identity) from the get go but after our third opinion was in favor of keeping parts of it I stopped trying to get rid of it and just focused on trying to do some quality control.

My problems with the version he's pushing are that it has two paragraphs full of uncited stuff at the end, and in my opinion most of it is so original research that I don't think any citation would even be possible (our third opinon also reccommended it be deleted). He's using entire paragraphs of quotes to illustrate his points and his sources are all online editorials and blog entries.

I've put it up at RfC but no one's bitting, could you please help?

Just for reference...

Here's what he's been reverting to [[2]]

Here's what I've been reverting to [[3]]

128.192.81.40 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Broad/Narrow

Hi Atom, I brought this here because I think we are in agreement over on the proposal page about the linking being a good compromise. I wanted to reply to your most recent mention of broad-view / narrow-view here at your Talk page because I don't want us to get off topic over at the proposal.

I agree with you on the violence-on-Tv vs nudity-on-Tv ratio. I think it is paradoxical. However, I also think it is important to realize that some people would say the narrow view is taken by those who would focus their attention on nudity and sex as a way to fill their sexual appetite; where God would want to take a broader view and see sex as a means to accomplish the bigger goal of reproduction and creating a society in His image. I am not asking you to agree with those people. I just don't know if it is helpful to say, as you did, that these people have "skewed values" while are trying to build some consensus for a compromise.

Other than the above suggestion, I think you are doing an excellent, and important job, at helping to create these guidelines. Best, Johntex\^talk 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I respect your opinion, Johntex. I don't have a problem with conservative christians following their values. I do have a problem when they think that other religions, and people with other views have bad values, and those values should be corrected. My personal view on nudity and sex is perhaps beyond what you say. I'm not a fan of pornography because I find it boring. I've been exposed to sexuality all of my life, and frankly I don't think of a porno video as any more exciting that Nasacar racing (and believe me, I don't find that the least bit interesting.) If more people were exposed to sexuality as just another part of normal life, no different than getting your teeth cleaned, then it would not be a problem. I see sexuality based problems of today, primarily STI's, Teen pregnancy, undesired pregancy that sometimes results in the need for abortion as primarily caused by conservative religions who repress proper sex education. The catholic churches stance on birth control and repressed views of sexuality doesn't help. I respect your, and other peoples vision for what god would want, but frankly, it is all an extension of their own views. Besides a hundred different christian sects with differing views of what god wants, there are numerous other religions, (which outnumber christiantity) with their own opinions about that. The reason I describe religious conservativism as "narrow", other than because that is the stereotypical view by most people, is because, in my opinion, it is more narrow than a view of seeing the world for how it really is. "Skewed" values are when a group does not respect the rights of other groups to have different values, and tries to force society to change to enforce their view. Atom 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Atom, thanks for the reply. Just to clarify somehting, I did not say they are my views, I just think I happen to understand them a little bit. I think that just as you don't want to have their views forced on you, they don't want to have your views forced on them. I'm sure some Christians would love to eliminate Playboy, I'm sure, but others just want to make sure that Playboy's can't be sold to their kids. I'm sure some Christians would like to eliminate nudity in movies, but most Christians would be happy just to know the nudity is coming, so they can make a choice about whether their kids see it. That is why that momentary flash of nipple was such a big deal - because it came up in a completely unexpected place. Johntex\^talk 01:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence the first amendment. There to protect us from religion, and allow free speech. I don't wish to force my views on them. I am happy with live and let live. When someone isn't willing to allow free speech, including open discussion and discourse on sexuality, it is they who are not abiding by the rules, not me forcing something on them. As for nudity, wouldn't it be nice if nudity was not any more noticable than the color shirt someone were wearing? With a culture inured to nudity, maybe people could focus more on living their life according to the teachings of Jesus, rather than being afraid that they might be shocked by something in a movie that is as natural as anything god has made could be? The momentary flash is nipple is obscene, but the tackle that rips the guys head off and puts him out for the rest of the season is okay?

Well, enough of that. Rest assured that I respect the rights of others. And if we agree on a fence between our yards, I am fine with that. I just want that fence to be respected, and not have my neighbor whine later that god wants the fence closer to my house. Atom 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please allow edit

Please allow my edit of the orgasm article. I deleted a paragraph on a study that has not been peer-reviewed.

85.197.230.51 14:08, 13 October 2006

I reverted the change beacuse you removed a whole paragraph about one perspective. It may not be your opinion, and isn't mine, but it was well written, and had a good citation. It doesn't appear to be original research. Even if it has not been peer reviewed, I don't see it as a bad citation. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability)

Also, consider that a blank of an entire paragraph, from an anonymous IP address, is more often than not vandalism. In your case, I see that isn't the case. You might consider registering and getting a logon ID if you plan substantially more edits in the future.

Regards, Atom 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity (philosophy)

I visited this page and found no discussion, or talk page. Where is the discussion and consensus? here. Amerindianarts 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry. I found the page. But this is an old argument, and the article has done nothing but degenerate since that time. It gets worse rather than better and is a magnet for originality. I will take it an admin page for consideration of a reinsert of the third nomination. Amerindianarts 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy is not my area of expertise. You are right, it has been since January since the delete request was considered. However, as the results of that were three people for redirect or merge, eight people for keep, and no one for delete, do you think that it will be substantianly different a few months later? Since it is a valid topic (Objectivism), and your primary concern expressed is that it is Original research and not referenced (and yet five references, and 12 further reading references) it is unlikely that another attempt to delete it will succeed. In fact, it seems likely that people will feel that your desire to delete it over and over is not sincere in the best interests of the quality of the article, and more about disagreeing with other peoples perspectives on the content. If you can't have the content you like, well then, try to get the article deleted? Forgive me please if I am mistaken on this. My suggestion is to improve the article using the references that you say need to be given. Regards, Atom 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I did improve it. If you check the history you will see that I added references and completely rewrote the article. I did this because the original article was tagged for clean-up (it was a piece of philosophical trash) and was a magnet for innuendo and propoganda by means of inserting individual philosophies. But it is still for the most part original research on my part. The concept is not defined in philosophy and never will be. Amerindianarts 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you are trying to delete it then. It is a good article. So, it isn't perfect. Let others come along behind you and add their improvements. Atom 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But I will watch it and be prepared from many talk page discussions concerning irrelevant future edits. Amerindianarts 19:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Handkerchief code

If you are into BDSM and are pro-gay, why did you delete the link to the handkerchief code that I provided for the paraphilia article? It would certainly seem to be a relevant connection. Keraunos 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the handkerchief code, and have no problem with it. I edit many sexuality articles, and I felt that in this case, there was no link between handkerchief code and paraphilia. The handkerchief code indicates a particular area of kink, or interest, and not paraphilia, which is something related, but different. A paraphilia is (as the article indicates) "reference sexual arousal in response to sexual objects", or "situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity", or "Also, it may describe sexual feelings toward otherwise non-sexual objects". I agree that there is a relationship, in that both have to do with sexual interest or arousal. But, the connection is tenuous at best. MOst of the handkerchief codes have to do with a type of sexual behavior (say fisting, or oral sex, or slave/master, or bondage). Paraphilias often are things like only being able to become sexually excited by shoes, or exposing oneself. The DSM-IV does have Sadism and Masochism, as well as Frotteurism, which are in common with BDSM, and frot. The difference though is with a paraphilia, one can only be sexually excited by sadism or masochism. The person who has the paraphilia often is embarrased by their interest, and wishes they were different. WIth the hanky code, a perosn voluntarily indicates an interest in participating in a sex act, such as S&M (black) or fisting (red), and is something that they would call an interest, or perhaps kink, and not usually the only source of eroticism for them. Also it something they advertise and are usually glad to be interested in, rather than viewing it as a disorder theyt wish they could change.

Anyway, my apologies for stepping on your toes. I perhaps could have posted comments on the talk page first. On that particular day, I probably reverted 30 or 40 changes to sexuality articles, and yours was the only one where someone thought it might be innacurate.

Atom 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

External links on Swinging

No offence, but I decided to be bold and revert the article to a point where the "good" external links were still in the article. The article does suffer from daily spamming, but removing all external links seems a bit draconian to me. Cheers! OscarTheCat3 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been collecting links for awhile. Wikipedia policy supports using external links in only rare instances. In most cases information either does not belogn there at all, or should be integrated into the article, and cited appropriately in the references section.

Thanks for letting me know your thoughts about it. Atom 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ménage à trois

No, I'm not treading on "our" toes; the "our" in this case is you, none of the other editors appear to support inclusion either. Default for all content is not to include without consensus. Consensus is absent here. Rather than edit warring over the image, how about addressing the substantive concerns raised in Talk? I ahve addressed your main concern , that the imagfe should be available for those participating in the RfC, by including it on the Talk page where it can be reviewed by participants. Guy 12:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I responded to some of this on your talk page. I respect your desire to "default for all content is to not include without consensus". As that is one of the guidelines I have written, it makes sense to me. I did not put the image in the article, it was already there. I have put the image back in as there have been attempts to censor it because it is "not safe for work", and other reasons. SO, I view that the image *is* in the article, and that you keep removing it. As a result of several people on one side, and several on the other, user:Nlu put in a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_law,_and_sex to help add some other opinions. The goal, of course, is to have a larger group of people, and opinions on it, and find a long-term solution (rather than short term bickering).

As far as addressing the substantive issues in talk, I have done that numnerous times, as you certainly can see by reading them. The dictionary definition of Ménage à trois is ("A living arrangement comprising three people in a sexual relationship"). I don't get how excising anything to do with a sexual relationship from the article is beneficial, or in the best interests of the quality of the article. If you want to have a crusade to change the definition back to the french definition, more power to you, but it doesn't belong here. Atom 12:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Sex tourism

As an editor involved in this dispute, you are invited to enter a statement in the RfC under Talk:Sex_tourism. — edgarde 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Sex

Okay, so we've both got similar WikiProjects and I think it's a good idea if we merge them. However, to be honest I think WP Sex has a better name to to its shortness and simplicity. So how about we merge the two projects but have the name WP Sex?

However, I've gone around and tagged a few page with WP Sex templates, so if we do merge, we may have to search around Wikipedia to find those pages (as I didn't keep a list). Anyway, thanks for telling me about your project and I hope we'll reach an agreement swiftly. Atlantis Hawk 09:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to track down the templates by looking at the template page on the left side to see where they are referenced. ("What links here") It looks to me like you have 19 references currently. Also, you could keep the template, (and name) and change the content to point to the existing project with minimal changes elsewhere).

I agree your name is more concise, but when I had the idea that you just had (create a project for sexuality), and found that one existed, it was already named. It has been around since early 2004. We could discuss renaming, and there are many pros and cons to that. I have found that using the unwieldy title we have seems to be fairly respected in discussions on talk pages when something is contentious (see recent talk on the Talk:Semen#BIG_vote_in_favor_of_getting_rid_of_the_.27human_semen.27_photo} Discussion on Semen article]]. Once people see that your area of focus is sexuality, and that you are part of a wikiproject for that, they recognize that you deal with these issues all of the time. I am not certain that the wikiproject:sex title would garner as strong support. Sort of the perception (and I think it is just that) that people interested in "sex" are deviants, while "sexologists" are experts...*shrugs*.

As there are only a few of us participating, I think that your participation and energy would make a huge impact.

Thanks, Atom 09:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll join your current WikiProject, however I think we should conduct some sort of poll to see which title is more popular. Atlantis Hawk 11:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't so much my project, or my title. As I said, the title is not as short, but does have a reputation. The briefer title "sex" is perceived differently (more about the act of sex, rather than the science of sexuality/sexology). At any rate, I welcome your energy as part of the project. Atom 14:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Core policies?

Since you were part of the earlier debate about this on WT:ATT, please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:List of policies. Thank you. (Radiant) 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion and sexuality revert

You recently reverted some reorganising and (I thought) balancing edits I made to this article, without any explanation. Could you please explain what you thought was faulty about those changes? -- Perey 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yes I am happy to explain. First, here is the edit that you made. [4] I believe there were three changes, where you removed a section titled "Liberated Christians", removed two portions that talked about the views of fundamentalist and conservative sects, and added a section about "Liberal Churches" with the text of the liberated christians. I felt that their was too much text removed, and that this disturbed the balance of the NPOV of the article. The section on conservative views was necessary to balance that of the liberal views described. As you can see, since then, there have been a numer of canged to the article by others. Atom 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As you say in a roundabout way, I moved (not removed) the "Liberated Christians" paragraph, merging it with the latter part of the "Sex outside of marriage..." paragraph. (I dropped the first part of that paragraph because I believe it duplicates earlier material, specifically the paragraph beginning, "The basis of many Christian views..."). I moved these to a section I titled "Liberal churches" because I very much feel these sections, as they stand (one in the top "Christianity and sexuality" section, one under "Protestant and Anglican Churches"), inaccurately depict these liberal views as more mainstream than they really are. Saying, for instance, "fundamentalist and conservative Christian sects, churches and some fringe groups" may be essentially accurate, but it masks the fact that conservative Christianity makes up the mainstream of Christian denominations around the world (whereas fundamentalists and fringe groups do not). The major denominations are at least split and at most firmly opposed on the matter of homosexuality; and I know of no major denomination that does not strongly support sex being limited to marriage. (The only text I outright deleted was the paragraph starting "There are also some evangelical churches...", which both duplicates the earlier "According to most Christian teachings..." paragraph, and contradicts it by painting these views as those of "some", not "most".) -- Perey 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that we can discuss this in the article and find a way to make the article better. I accept your opinion that a the "conservative christianity makes up the mainstream of christianity in America". I don't think that is accurate, but that is just my opinion. Clearly the religious right has been a very vocal minority in america with a majority of Americans, and Christians, actually in the middle with moderate political and religious views(not what one would call liberal either). Besides that is that a majority of christians, including conservative, moderate and liberal tend to follow the teachings of Christ, and so do not condemn homnosexuals, only varying degrees of condemning homosexual acts. We can make the article better by us working with others to back up statements and opinions with cites and references. My experience is that people tend to think that most other people have religious views similar to their own, rather than different from their own, regardless of where they fit in the spectrum. Let's further discuss these things and include others on the article talk page.

Atom 12:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As you wish; I've started a section on the talk page there. One (or two) things I'll just note here, though, are that a) I said nothing about America (and would not be qualified to do so, I'm Australian), and b) I was intending a fairly simplistic pigeon-holing of 'liberal' vs 'conservative'; conservative being the 'traditional' ideas (basically: no sex outside marriage, which is heterosexual only), and liberal being looser on these. As far as I'm aware, most denominations still hold very strongly to this. -- Perey 15:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota sports

I see we have conflicting edits. I'll try to sort out you changes from mine and combine them. Kablammo 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the only real difference is the citation-- my edits were stylistic and removal of unnecessary verbiage. Kablammo 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I am done with sports. I am working may way up through the references. Go for it. We should all get on AIM or something. Atom 17:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the references. It's beyond my computer skills. Can you fix the sports reference I overwrote? I'll stay out of the article for a while. Kablammo 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of police brutality

I saw you reverted edits by an anonymous IP at police brutality. What did you not like about the edit? I thought it clarified some murky writing, but I wonder if I missed something. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 03:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Always nice to talk with you. The anon IP edit didn't seem to clarify it for me. The section, as you say, seemed murkey and difficult to grasp. The edit, although not vandalism, added more complexity, making it more difficult to understand, I thought.

The first section starts by introducing the main thought "In some cases the police can be seen as siding with or against a government on political issues." My read of this is that Police, while doing their job, are sometimes viewed as supporting or agreeing with the people or event they are protecting. In this case, they were perceived as being on the side of the Glabalists, against the anti-Globalists.

The 'before edit comment read "For example during the aftermath of the Quebec City Summit of the Americas in 2001, anti-globalization protesters contended that the police were defending the capitalist objectives of the closed-door summit..."

And after' For example during the Quebec City Summit of the Americas in 2001, it was believed by the anti-globalists that the police were defending the capitalist objectives of the summit participants, yet many people viewed those anti-globalists' actions as unreasonable and destructive.

Now, this may have been true ("many people viewed those anti-globalists' actions as unreasonable and destructive".) I don't know, but it does not support (is tangential) to the main theme of the police being viewed as supportive or siding with or against the government." It discusses the perspective people may have had about the anti-globalists, not the police.

Then additional material was added: "Another example is when, in March 2006, masked Kenyan police attacked a media outlet during the midst of a government corruption scandal; see Corruption in Kenya for details. "

This is a different topic altogether, a case where (apparently) the police act on behalf of the government against a media outlet. If true, it would qualify as police acting in a brutal way, but first, it doesn't support the theme of the paragraph (that police in doing there job are perceived as supporting or siding with the government -- as the police are accused of attacking a media outlet, a military action, not a police action in the course of their job). The article as a whole is about police misuse of their proper authority, not about misuse of the police by government. If we wish to broaden the scope and discuss that, a seperate section would be needed, and it would not belong here, in a section discussing how police are viewed in the process of doing their job.

The material was well intended by the anon editor, I think, but misguided. I think my mistake is in doing a quick pop-up revert instead of traking the time (as I shoujld have) to explain in the edit description field. I will work on that. Atom 12:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Minn again

Atom-- thanks for fixing all the references and your other work on this article. On rivers, I agree with the St. Croix addition, but as the Chippewa river is in Wisconsin I don't think we need it here, especially given the article's length. Question: I want to post a suggested revision of sports, but not do it on the main page yet. Where do you think I could post it? (I'll watch this page if you want to reply here.) Thanks. Kablammo 19:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks to you too. You've added alot of great stuff!

I put a link for you to put the WIP sports stuff at WIP Sports section.

I think the St. Croix river and river valley are yet another of the many great natural resources in Minnesota. The Chippewa river, as you say is a Wisconsin resource. My spin on this though is that the sentence is about the mighty Mississippi river, and the Minnesota nearly doubles the volume, and the St. Croix nearly doubles is again, and then the Chippewa river adds a third to the volume. All of this takes places while the Mississpi is in or adjons MN. Atom 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize

that American Progressive referred to that limited time period. I bet there are quite a few in that category that shouldn't be. e.g. Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey. I'll take a look at them at some point. Today I've been working on Demographics of Minnesota, Politics of Minnesota, and Category:Fauna of Minnesota Thanks, B Appraiser 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanation needed

"Female Domination" is a good source for references regarding the article female dominance.

It stated in the Wikipedia:External links that sites should be linked when the sites are

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

"Female Domination" belongs to the above category. I think you need to throw your bias out. Also, why did you place so many commerical links to wikipedia?

I don't know what you mean about commercial sites. Perhaps you mean why do I get rid of so many commercial sites? Your site is a commercial site, even though well disguised. It contains advertising and you get paid for the advertising.

I disagree that it fits into one of the above categories. I edit hundreds of sexology and sexuality articles and see people trying to do what you are doing all of the time.

Wp:el#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest Says:

• "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to."

Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Says:

• "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"
• "Links mainly intended to promote a website."

Also, external links should only rarely be used, if you have things to add the article, they should be added to the body of the article, and not in an external link. You are, in fact, using the link to draw people to your site. This is in effect, a method of advertising your web site, and is not allowed by policy.

If you continue to add your web link the article, eventually you will get blocked. Thanks, and good luck with your web site.

Atom 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnail sizes

I was thinking some more about the discussion you had with an administrator about thumbnail sizes. Currently, users can choose to set their default TN size to 120, 150, 180, 200, 250, or 300 px. So, if the article author does not specify a size, the wiki program creates six images, to accommodate all users. Imagine if an optional field were created such as |#TR|, or (number thumb ratio), where # can be any number between zero and 2. For example [[Image:IDS reflecting Wells Fargo.jpg|left|thumb|0.5TR|The [[IDS Tower]], designed by [[Philip Johnson]]]]. This would cause the wiki program to create six images, 60, 75, 90, 100, 125, and 150 px. It would place no more strain on the system than the current syntax does. And there would not be any on-the-fly processing required. It would not cause backward-compatibility issues because the field is optional. In this case, the IDS thumbnail would be relatively smaller on the page, without sacrificing the user's ability to set preferences. Appraiser 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lesbian American history

is a candidate for GA. I think it meets the requirements. Take a look if you're interested. Appraiser 01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to gush with gratitude... :)

Thank you so much for your contributions to Lesbian American history! Your edits are exactly what I've been hoping for, and I am so thankful you've decided to contribute to the article. Here's hoping that it makes good article status, and can be improved to be a featured article! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 04:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like the article made GA today! My editing was minor compared to the extensive work that you put into it. It looks like there are a few things needed to improve it, and then maybe we can shoot to push it to FA. Atom 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 13 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pike Island, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion request

Hi, We have not always seen eye to eye, but that happens. Would you mind taking a look at the Nazar ill'al-murd page and related AfD? Another opinion would be helpful. Thanks, Haiduc 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the article, and left a keep vote. It is not an area I have any knowledge about really. It seems that there are several problems in the article that need to be corrected. Atom 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not intimate about blocking action for Bold edits in accordance with policies. And also ensure you sign your comments in future. "Snorkel | Talk" 14:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As you have seen by now, after ten editors, including myself, asked you to stop changing the spelling of articles from American English to British english, against the MOS, you were blocked by an admin. (Please see [User_talk:Snozzer#Please_stop_wholesale_spelling_changes]) and (User_talk:Snozzer#Blocked). As I previously advised, following the MOS and other policies is always the safest bet. Atom 16:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

MN

Did you intend to delete the <div class="references-small"> and </div> from Minnesota, or was that change inadvertent? Appraiser 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I did in intentionally, and it looked okay. Didn't mean to break anything though. I'll put it back if you haven't already. Atom 16:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Political

As you say on your user page that you don't concure with neither of the political spectrum. I thought it would be informative and nice to show you that you are not alone demonstrated by the Nolan chart. That there are more than on dimension to the political viewpoint. Lord Metroid 20:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

sodomy

The biblical injunctions are not against sodomy but against anal sex (see 1Corinthians 6:9-10). It was only later that sodomy came to include anal sex (as well as bestiality and so forth). So I think you are on the right track but have put the horse before the cart in the Anal sex article. And what is a "luti" if not a bugger?! Haiduc 01:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are right that 1 corinthians 6:9-10 does not use the word sodomy, or sodomite. But, it also says nothing about anal sex either. The KJV reads "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

This being a translation of the original greek, and just some translators view. What does "abusers of themselves with mankind" mean? Well, it is anyones guess, but it sure doesn't say sodomy or anal sex.

My change in the article was to suggest that the bible in no place says that anal sex is a sin, but in some places says that sodomites are sinful, and the meaning of that is still actively debated.

As for "luti", of course, means those people of/like "Lot", which are the people of Sodom that survived the destruction of Sodom. It isn't clear what the sins of Sodom where, among many things, sins of the flesh are referred to, but not anal sex specifically. Atom 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking, it is Leviticus I wanted to cite. Check this out: Ancient authors employed euphemism when describing sex, making it difficult to prove exactly what activities they understood to be included within these verses. Is it possible that the biblical prohibition called mishk’vei ishah and later, by the Rabbis, mishkav zakhur, includes actions other than anal intercourse? These verses have been variously translated, but almost all readers conclude that they prohibit anal sex between men, with the first verse addressing only the insertive partner, and the second verse including the receptive partner.[5]. We'll leave liwat for later if you do not mind. Haiduc 06:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Leviticus is clearer for sure. Lev 20:13 basically says "If a man has intercourse with another man in the same manner as with a woman, both of them have committed a disgusting perversion. They shall be put to death by stoning." I think most people would be likely to assume they are talking about anal sex here.

The same part of Leviticus also recommends death by stoning for:

• Any person who curses his father or mother
• If a man commits adultery with a married woman, [and] she is the wife of a fellow [Israelite], both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death.
• If a man has intercourse with his father's wife,
• If a man has intercourse with his daughter-in-law
• If a woman presents herself to an animal and allows it to mate with her, you shall kill both the woman and the animal
• Any man or woman who is involved in [the practices of] the mediums or oracles shall be put to death.

Burned with fire:

• If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is a perversion, and both he and [the second one taken]

Unspecified death:

• If a man performs a sexual act with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal shall also be killed.

Clearly God is not someone to mess with as Leviticus emphasises the importance of not disobeying God:

Destruction and Repentance

26:27 If you still do not obey Me and remain indifferent to Me,

26:28 then I will be indifferent to you with a vengeance, bringing yet another sevenfold increase in the punishment for your sins.

26:29 You will eat the flesh of your sons, and make a meal of the flesh of your daughters.

26:30 When I destroy your altars and smash your sun gods, I will let your corpses rot on the remains of your idols. I will thus have grown tired of you.

26:31 I will let your cities fall into ruins, and make your sanctuaries desolate. No longer will I accept the appeasing fragrance [of your sacrifices].

26:32 I will make the land so desolate that [even] your enemies who live there will be astonished.

26:33 I will scatter you among the nations, and keep the sword drawn against you. Your land will remain desolate, and your cities in ruins.

26:34 Then, as long as the land is desolate and you are in your enemies' land, the land will enjoy its sabbaths. The land will rest and enjoy its sabbatical years.

26:35 Thus, as long as it is desolate, [the land] will enjoy the sabbatical rest that you would not give it when you lived there.

26:36 I will bring such insecurity upon those of you who survive in your enemies' land that the sound of a rustling leaf will make them flee from the sword. They will fall with no one chasing them.

26:37 They will fall over one another as if [chased] by the sword, even when there is no one pursuing. You will have no means of standing up before your foes.

26:38 You will thus be destroyed among the nations. The land of your enemies will consume you.

26:39 The few of you who survive in your enemies' lands will [realize that] your survival is threatened as a result of your nonobservance. [These few] will also [realize] that their survival has been threatened because of the nonobservance of their fathers.

26:40 They will then confess their sins and the sins of their fathers for being false and remaining indifferent to Me.

26:41 [It was for this] that I also remained indifferent to them, and brought them into their enemies' land. But when the time finally comes that their stubborn spirit is humbled, I will forgive their sin.

26:42 I will remember My covenant with Jacob as well as My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham. I will remember the land.

26:43 [For] the land will have been left behind by them, and will have enjoyed its sabbaths while it lay in desolation without them. The sin [they had committed] by denigrating My laws and growing tired of My decrees, will [also] have been expiated.

26:44 Thus, even when they are in their enemies' land, I will not grow so disgusted with them nor so tired of them that I would destroy them and break My covenant with them, since I am God their Lord.

26:45 I will therefore remember the covenant with their original ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations, so as to be a God to them. I am God.

26:46 These are the decrees, laws and codes that God set between Himself and the Israelites at Mount Sinai through the hand of Moses.

Those are all good ideas. I hope you will not mind if I post the wise Jews' views in the article. Haiduc 20:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You work has always been in good faith. Both of us offer what we can to try and improve articles the best way we know how. Atom 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Female Sex Tourism Destinations - Remove external link

What was the problem with the in-line reference you removed? [6] I had been waiting weeks for that domain to be unblocked. / edgarde 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to step on your toes. It is an external reference. Youhad it imbedded in the article, but it is still an external reference. If there is something that you are quoting, from a book, magazine, or web site, then you would refer to the fact in the article, and then reference the source. In your case, you did not quote anything, you just put a link to an external web site in a reference.

It may be the case that the sentence talks about Tourism for women to Jamaica, and the link goes to a site where people offer that, but that kind of reference is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Atom 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll presume you understand how external references are used in web citations.

To the best of my knowledge this is not a commercial site offering sex tourism for women or promoting the like. A look at several other articles in the carabvoice "http://www.carib voice.org/Travel&Tourism/" (and dammit now the thing's blacklisted again) directory suggests the editorial slant may be overall pro-tourism, but little more. I don't see other sex tourism articles listed. Nor is the linked article itself promotional in tone.

Overall the site appears to be targeted at Carribean-born people living outside the country, rather than foreign nationals considering vacations.

This is the link in question: http://www.caribvoice.org/Travel&Tourism/sextourism.html

This is the article context; search on "Jamaica". Please note that the reference, "[11]", does in fact have a quote in the footnote, which is relevant to the referenced sentence in the article.

I think this is an appropriate use of an external link in an in-line citation. I'd like to add a more authoritative link, but I'd like to keep the comparatively informal Caribvoice link as well.

Can you please undo your deletion? As I write this, you are the last editor [7], so a simple revert will do the job.

I realise your intentions are good, but I waited two weeks to get this link in, and now my work is undone. / edgarde 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Popups & edit summary

Re: [8]. In a case like that it would probably be good to leave a note for the user or add something in the edit summary explaining why you reverted. Its important to let IP users feel useful so they become regular users. -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I watch a large number of articles, and the ones I watch (mostly in the sexology and sexuality areas) are frequently targets of anon vandalism, I often just refvert with Pop-ups. As you say, that does not leave an explanation. In the specific case you mention, an edit summary saying that the Sports in Minnesota article already had all of that information would have been appropriate. I appreciate your feedback, as well as all of your hard work on Minnesota articles. Atom 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New comment: Hi - you deleted my entry for "acnephilia" in the list of paraphilias. Why? It's a true kink. Should I write an article on it, to justify it? Thanks for letting me know!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.166.24 (talk • contribs)

I am aware that some people have a fascination with "popping zits". That doesn't make it a sexual paraphilia, however. I did a search on google scholar looking for research papers or journal articles and found none. The few references I found on google were advertising sites, nothing academic. If you think it should be listed, please find a reliable source to cite. An academic journal or scientific article would not only prove your point, but help others in the future who found that applicable to themselves. Atom 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of breast images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=94188978 I restored the images that were removed from edit warring by I think you know who. I replaced one of the older images with a newer one too. The removal of images was not discussed. The images must be restored according to policy. Removal of pictures that were already in the article for a long time I believe violates policy. Please go through the history. Check way back, like months ago, then you will see the images were there before. Again, removing images without consensus is a violation of policy. I merely restored images that were "lost" from "edit war" and replaced one image with another image. Thanks. --MotherAmy 02:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I just left a 3RR warning on the user page for User talk:Embryoglio. His method of trying to resolve issues is not civil and is disruptive. I appreciate your communication in trying to resolve your issues in a non-combatative manner.

I'll go back and look at the logs to check out what you are saying regarding the images. I recall a discussion some time back about you removing an older image and adding a newer one without discussing it first. Various editors disagreed with you, and you labeled that as censorship, when they were using editorial discretion to maintain the quality of the article.

Let me assure you, there is probably no one on Wikipedia less likely to censor an image than myself. If you look at my user page, and my history of edits on hundreds of sexuality and sexology articles, you will see that.

Also, I have no problem with changing images on an article, or in including other images when they make the article better.

Because in sexuality and sexolgy articles there is often someone who wants to remove images, and uses whatever excuse they can, I began discussion of this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines to help keep articles from being censored, while trying to establish guidelines that many people could agree on in order to keep the quality of articles high.

Trying to not replace an image, unless the new image offers more information is one of those. Trying to not put redundant images in the article, but enough to make the article interesting and well documented is another.

In the breast article, we do not desire to have a collection of images to illustrate every aspect and characteristic of the female breast. That is not encylopedic, nor does it give useful informaiton to the average reader.

As I said, I will go back and lok at the edits. In the mean time, I appreciate your effort in maintainging civil discourse in the article and avoiding edit warring while we sort everything out. Atom 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain on the talk page why removing images without consensus from edit warring is right or wrong. I do have proof the images were in the article for a long time. They were removed without discussion or actually consensus. Again, the history is the proof. Please take a close look through the history. I invite administration action to look through the history. The images were removed without consensus which violate policy. Thanks again. --MotherAmy 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please save me some time. Which image was removed without prior discussion. Approximately what time period. Or if you could provide a diff that would be great help. Atom 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest that you have not looked into this matter in depth and you have reverted without doing your research first. I explained my reason on the talk page for restoring the images that were in the article for a long time. Consensus was never reached to remove the images. Edit warring by you know who removed the images. Consensus must be reached first before removing the images. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=prev&oldid=94188978 Start here. Then check back last year in November, October, and September and so on. I replaced one old image with a new image but the rest were in the article before. Please do not add any new images if you so desire but at the very least restore the images that were in the article before. My edits are consist which is restoring images that were removed without consensus. --MotherAmy 03:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a look. How do you feel about the images at this point in time [[9]]? It seems to include the image that you speak of. You are right, I don't recall any discussion of the removal or replacement of "Relatively round breasts which protrude almost horizontally". Do you mind if I copy this discussion to the breast article to support one of us putting it back in? (to avoid another edit war). Atom 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) I feel you did not read my comments and reverted without understanding the facts. But now that you have briefly looked into the matter you are beginning to understand. Over the holidays there was an attack to remove the images while we were enjoying apple pie. There is still 2 images missing from that link you are showing . One is the red head which is 6 months pregnant. And the other which is a low quality picture which I then replaced with a new one. I think first we should at least restore the images that were vandalized. I cannot restore the image because I would be breaking the 3 revert policy. And you can take any comment I have made anywhere you like. I do not understand why nobody is reading my comments on the talk page. This makes no sense. --MotherAmy 04:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is at least one more image that was removed without discussion. Add it to the proper place please. Be careful of the editor who has a pattern of censorship. Thanks, --MotherAmy 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, what I put in is a starting point. I wanted to wait to hear from you before proceeding further. Let me look into this image also. My recollection had been that it was an image that you added recently, but I may be mistaken. Atom 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

Heh, sure. You'd be surprised to know how often people edit war over rfc wording, though. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)