User talk:Inkwell

The reason I complained to you is you wrote to me and also seem actively involved with this topic and was trying to present my case, you have presented it back enough said however I personally think that the whole article on swinging is very poor indeed.

Regarding our mark sdc, again we own the trademark but now I understand you don't want adult sites on wikipedia, if you had said that in the first place I would have understood but it does seem extremly unfair to allow our competitors to do teh same - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aff

At least now you're admitting that this is about competition not content. Inkwell 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging:

First of all, the way you write suggests that I wrote that whole article. The vast majority of it has nothing to do with me. Most of what you say should really be posted on the discussion page for the article, rather than directed at me personally.

You said: 1. The content was not rewritten but rather stolen verbatim from this website: http://www.thecottageinpa.com/documents/101.html.

I have no idea either way. The only evidence I have is that the dates on the root directory say that nothing there is pre 2005, and we know that the wikipedia article is much older than this. There are lots of copies of the Wikipedia article, and in fact many wikipedia articles, all over the place. See here http://www.sexinasecond.com/swingers-sex.htm, here: http://www.all-swingers.com/swingers_subgroups_.html and here: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Swinging. I can't see a reason why the article you mention is the original.

Check back to the original wikipedia edit, and you can see how the article grows. It looks like it grows into the article we have today very organically. And most of the original content is in the articles I mentioned above, suggesting THEY copied from HERE, which happens alot.

3. 'Urban swinging' began with Fever Parties [3] in London in the late 1990s and involves affluent metropolitan young people, discrimination on the basis on looks and an upper age limit usually around 40. Urban swinging events include mostly childless, unmarried young graduates and can have average ages as low as the late twenties, whereas ordinary or 'suburban' swingers events tend to have average ages in the 40s. Urban swinging subsequently spread to Manchester (UK), Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the USA. This is not true and an obvious plug for fever parties, parties of this nature have been going on long before the 1990s see the skin party or the bliss party etc.

Ok, I know nothing about this, and the text above is nothing to do with me. If you disagree - edit. If you edited things other than adding your link, I and others might take you more seriously.

4. Urban swinging subsequently spread to Manchester (UK), Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the USA. This is demographically incorrect, urban swinging for want of a better word probably started in Amsterdam at world famous clubs like fun4two which has been in business for 26 years.

Fun4two is nothing like Fever. Fever and other "Urban Swinging" clubs (I have no idea why they are called that, in fact I was thinking of starting a discussion about this) like Belle Baise and Lounge Parties in the UK allow entry based on photographs and age. Fun4Two are open to all. The article "Urban Swinging" is specifically about clubs that select their members based on looks and age.

5. There are over 3,000 swinging clubs worldwide. I added this correction while you have chosen to leave it in you have not chosen to leave the source of information namely http://www.swingersclublist.com, I run this site, its free so its not a commercial plug and because I run this site I know there are currently 3012 swingers clubs in the list while you choose to use this information you chose to remove the source of this information, wouldn’t a wikipedia user reading the swinger document want accurate and up to date information of the worldwide swingers clubs it is referencing?

I know something about the swinging scene and your website. It's a good website, but I don't think it's the best, and it's certainly not the only one worth mentioning. Wikipedia is about content, not links. Anyone who wants to find a swinging club can type in "swinging club" on google. We shouldn't tell them which websites to look at unless they contain unique and specific information (like a link to a relevant club).

And yes, you are making a commercial plug for your website. It's not appropriate.

6. Regarding SDC and your removal under the acronym of is just wrong. SDC Media owns both a federal trademark registration for its SDC mark, U.S. Registration No. 2,818,125, and a pending U.S. trademark application for the same term. Type SDC in Google, what do you get? http://www.sdc.com hence Google seems to think sdc.com is the number one ranked website for the term sdc yet you do not, I wonder who's right?. The term SDC means swingers date club we own the trademark on it, you can buy a logo pin of it - https://www.sdcmedia.com/cc_sdcpin.aspx?AccountID= , you can buy t-shirts with it on - www.cafepress.com/lifestylegear/1182919, you can buy an adult movie starring its members - http://sdc.adameve.com/p-8833-swinging-in-the-usa.aspx, you can see the SDC clothes line - http://www.wickedtemptations.com/sdc-sdc-wear-styles.html, you can see us featured on playboy tv, and hbo. I want to reference SDC because it is the WORLDWIDE website in six different languages for swingers (BTW we do call ourselves SWINGERS, it is the number one term for our lifestyle according to Google analytics yet in wikipedia they seem to think the movie swingers is more important for that term, this is asinine.)

Well, come on - the internet is sex obsessed. You get sex results when you type innocent things. Wikipedia has no porn, so of course you are less likely to get a sex result.

I really don't think cafepress can be used as evidence - I've started one of those myself.

Like I said, EVERYTIME you have ever edited, you have added a link to SDC, this makes us nervous as we realise we are dealing with someone who is marketing to us, not editing for content. Maybe I and the others who removed that link were wrong, but I was not the only one who did it, so others agree with me. If you disagree, take it to the talk page and discuss it.

7. You talk about swingers club and parties but do not reference any, surely people would like to see accurate examples, we have over 50 parties a month worldwide, no other website has this but still you surreptitiously moderate this topic without actually thinking about the benefits of examples. If you want real examples of real swingers parties, clubs and communities currently active you only need to look here - http://www.sdc.com/subdomains.aspx. I am defending SDC because it is a definitive source worldwide for swingers in six different languages and I think people interested in researching swinging would want to know about it, correct me if I am wrong?

I openly edit this topic, I do nothing "surreptitiously".

I am thinking about preserving the integrity of Wikipedia and protecting it from people who use it for link bombing or marketing. That is not what Wikipedia is for.

Quite honestly, I don't think removing your link stops people from seeing examples. I don't think people come to Wikipedia looking for swinging clubs - they come for information. A club listing or two doesn't really add any useful information. If what people want is a swinging club, rather than abstract information, they'll use google rather than Wikipedia.

I think if we are going to add external links, it's probably best if they are added by impartial people, not those like yourself with a vested interest in them. We have to be objective, and I don't think you are being objective with your persistance that SDC is the best website to link to.

8. The critique of urban swinging among traditional swingers is that it is unethical to discriminate. For example the North American Swing Club Association (NASCA) does not accept into membership clubs which are not open to all and some couples may advertise themselves as "not Ken and Barbie" as an implicit rejection of what they perceive to be a superficial ideal of youthful physical attractiveness. If this was true why do i find sites on nasca with descriptions as follow: 1.the premier adult-dating website, catering exclusively to sexy young couples & singles world wide, 2.is an upscale lifestyle site catering to only the sexiest couples and single women, 3.Exclusive Parties in Luxurious Hotels for L.A.'s Sexiest People. (L.A.S.P) LA's exclusive weekly sex parties for 20-25 sexy young couples and several single women??

Again, if you disagree, edit or discuss on the swinging talk page. Why complain to me? I didn't write that.

Inkwell 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK...the online poll I mentioned. It is on website named http://www.clubforeplay.com/

It is a Swingers site that is focused mainly in the midwest. (Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma....mainly, but also surrounding states as well)

The question was stated as this....

"So how many of you get tested...please read answers carefully.... First 4 involve Full Swap couples. next 4 involve Full Swap Singles. last 2 Soft Swap only couples AND singles.

Please be honest."

the choices were..

Use condoms all the time and get STD tests regularly...we are a full swap couple

Use Condoms all the time and do not get STD tests regularly...full swap couple

Do NOT use condoms all the time‚ and get STD tests regularly...full swap couple

Do NOT use condoms all the time‚ and do NOT get STD tests regularly...FS Couple

Use condoms all the time and get STD tests regularly...I am a full swap single

Use Condoms all the time and do not get STD tests regularly...full swap single

Do NOT use condoms all the time‚ and get STD tests regularly...full swap single

Do NOT use condoms all the time‚ and do NOT get STD tests regularly...FS single

We are soft swap (couple or single) only‚ and get STD tests regularly

We are soft swap (couple or single) only‚ and do NOT get STD tests regularly

The Soft Swap folks were left out as they represented a very small portion of those polled....all figures were processed with that in consideration.

This is still an ongoing poll.

Now, folks in this area are much more frequent swappers than once or twice a year. There are parties (on or off premise...plus house parties) readily available every weekend a month within 100 miles ore so...pretty much no matter where you live. We usually go to parties...and probably swap...once or twice a month...plus we remain good friends with many of our partners. A large number of others in this part of the country are the same...going to parties once or twice a month. Each of these parties, depending on which one, averages approx. 50 to 100 couples each.

The idea behind regular testing, is that many STD's take a minimum of 6 months to fully become testable...and this is what most health authorities suggest for sexually active people....so by testing a minimum of twice a year...you are able to be pretty up to date on your results. (we tend to test 2 to 3 times a year).

As for condom usage, this poll also reflects what we have personally seen. A vast majority do not use condoms every time...many are like us, and leave that up to the other couple. (Reasons are due to 2 things. Occassional erectile disfuction due to condom use...and in depth studies have shown that condoms do not effectively protect against the most common STD's, such as HPV, Hepatitis, Chlamydia, Herpes, etc......feal free to debate this...but the information is readily available.)

We also found that many, if in a crowd or online will claim required condom usage, but their tone changes in the bedroom.

Another thing that both our experience and this poll reflects is that those who do not require condome usage 100% of the time tend to be the same people who are more likely to get tested regularly. Personally, awareness of personal status is the bigg5est prevention in spreading diseases.

I am currently in the process of writting a book, "A Simple Guide to Swinging", which I hope will be out in the near future...some of this will be covered, but not so in depth...as things like this may vary from region to region....country to country.

Personally, this entry on the subject, although informative to Vanilla Couples and such, reflects little of our years of experience in the Lifestyle.

(Please excuse any typo's...did not bother with spellceck)

Hope this helps....I wish I knew a way to exchange messages on here, to better discuss this....really do not want to give my e-mail out fo5r all to see.:)

Kraz_Eric 00:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that for those who engage in penetrative sex with strangers several times a year, testing twice a year is sensible, but the site doesn't ask how much risky behaviour is engaged in. Those who took part may swing once a year and therefore have no need of being tested twice-yearly. The use of "all the time" could skew the results as well - maybe a one-off drunken mistake, and the testers will click "NO".

All in all, it does not look like a reasonable cross section to me. Inkwell 07:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years, and with the various situations we have been in, from 2 on 2, to after-parties/orgies, house parties, and on-premise clubs.....in 4 different states of the US...it is consistant with what we have seen and experienced. The use of condoms is a hot topic, and there is constant debate on it, but it is not a universal rule. It is a topic discussed, and agreed upon at the time. Often, we have seen that those who require condoms need to make it clear at the outset of a group party, because it is not something expected or required by that group.Kraz_Eric 10:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can think of is that maybe it is different because I am in the UK. Not only have I visited several swinging clubs, but I have hosted my own swinging parties from time to time, and from taking part, watching and cleaning up afterwards, I see that condoms are standard practice. I have only seen "barebacking" within established couples. Inkwell 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be, and it could be just something common to this part of the US...from what I have seen posted from one place to another...Swinging is pretty different here compared to there. There are more organized parties here than you can shake a stick at, and the attitude seems different somehow too...:)

Kraz_Eric 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced most (but not all) of the external links in the Swinging article. The ones I didn't replace were either obviously spammy, or I just wasn't sure and figured someone else could put them back in. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for all you do! Cheers, OscarTheCat3 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LGBT studies

Hello! I noticed that your userpage mentions that you are interested in LGBT issues. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? The WikiProject's been a bit inactive recently and some of us are trying to get it going again. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging

Answered on my talk page ;-) by Snowolf (talk) on 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User category proposed deletion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 21#Category:Wikipedians who know where their towel is. It is proposed to delete this category. SpinningSpark 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]