User talk:Deon/Archives/2009/December

Boston Celtics

Hey, it's human to err. I also make silly contributions sometimes. That's why we're here - fighting vandalism :D Shakurazz (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion

Publications of the United States federal government and military are not subject to copyright. See Wikipedia:Copyright#United_States_Federal_Government. For this reason, I removed the copyvio tag from 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion. - Eastmain (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh! Learn something new every day.. Thanks for catching this for me :) — Deon^talk 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deon. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

You tagged Task Force Jim with {{db}} and a reason "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". That is not a valid speedy criterion, and i have removed the tag accordingly. Sicn I can find no evidence that this "task force" actually exists, i tagged it with {{Prod}} instead, which is the proper method to use for probable hoaxes, as it does happen that an apprent hoax is nothing of the sort. DES ^(talk) 13:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You also tagged Trip around the world (sexual technique) with the same "reason". I again removed the db tag, and in this case added a reference. FYI, this term for a sexual technique has been in used for at least 50 years, although like many sexual terms there is not much academic coverage of it. The notability of the term might be a:rgued, but that would need to be done at an AfD.

Please don't try to invent new speedy criteria. WP:NOT is not a list of speedy deletion criteria. DES ^(talk) 13:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh alright take it easy mate :)

I figured any sensible administrator who came across it would work out what to do. That user created a bunch of sexual techniques that I, nor Google, had seemingly heard of. I agree that I did not reference the exact CSD criteria, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to "invent new speed criteria", okay? Also - can you give me a source or two that shows this 'sexual technique' has been around for at least 50 years? I've never heard of it (as mentioned) and would've thought (probably an obvious misconception) that people wouldn't be performing such acts in the 50's. Cheers, and try to smile a bit eh? It's Christmas after all — Deon^talk 13:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if this were a nonexistant sexual technique, no speedy deletion criterion would apply -- apparent hoaxes should generally go by prod or AfD, because one or two sets of eyes aren't enough -- with the exception of blatant hoaxes such as "Bill Jones was elected President of the US in 2007." Gershon Legman, cited in the article, is a well known author on matters sexual and sex-related, and was writing more than 50 years ago. (He also wrote one of the more comprehensive studies of the limerick, including its many sexual instances.) My first encounter with the term came in several novels written in the early 1970s, but those probably wouldn't count as reliable sources for Wikipedia, but they pretty clearly showed that the term (or the variant "Around the world") had then been in use for some years. If need be i'll dig those references out. I think the term may have been mentions in The Joy of Sex but I'm not at all sure and would need to check. I did find one online dictionary of sexual terms that referenced the term.

I do react strongly to attempts to use speedy deletion beyond the quite narrow limits that have consensus. If something in fact fits one of the CSD (as I see it) but the tagger didn't know the exact CSD number, fine; I'll re-tag it properly or just delete it with the CSD number in the delete log. But it does have to fit something on the WP:CSD page

Now an argument that this is merely a dictdef, or not notable, might be hard to answer at an AfD. But an AfD allows time for research that might bring out good reasons to keep an article, which speedy deletion doesn't.

"people wouldn't be performing such acts in the 50's." I think you'll find that people were performing such acts (although not under that name) in the 0050s -- Rome was notorious for its sexual variations. Read The Pearl to get some idea of the range of sexual acts very much in vogue in the 1850s, or Lady Chatterley for that matter, or Fanny Hill. Sex, including more or less unusual sex, has a pretty long history.

Bah, Humbug :)

Happy editing. Sorry that my tone was less than amiable, and i apologize. Speedy deletions that seem to me unwarranted push one of my buttons, but that is no excuse for being uncivil. I will do better. DES ^(talk) 14:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well presented :). Interesting points you put forward. After reading some more into CSD, I can see that WP:CSD#G3 covers the kind of example you gave.. it will be interesting to see if that UK Special Forces article survives prod/AfD... you never know maybe it's some super-dooper-uber secret NSA-style agency ;-).

Anyway, thanks for setting me straight - Happy editing and Merry Christmas — Deon^talk 14:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. G3 does indeed cover the "Bill Jones..." kind of hoax, but it only covers really blatant hoaxes. My personal rule of thumb (not in any way official) is that if you need to check on Google to be sure its a hoax, it isn't a G3 speedy. Thanks for listening to (reading) my rants. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Terrible Triangle

Talk:Terrible Triangle#Sources --Error (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)