User talk:Sir Scalpel

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sebring, Florida has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loving Female Authority

Hi Sir Scalpel. My given reason wasn't a pretext. If you have high quality sites that meet our requirements for reliable sources I'd be happy to see an addition based on them. But you added an entire section that as far as I could tell was based on self-published material or your own original research. This doesn't meet the requirements of an encyclopedia - though it might make an interesting piece for your own website if you have one. If you think I misjudged one of the sources please bring it up on the the article talk page or alternatively at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the websites I cited were my own. I am not Katherine West. I am not whoever posts as tallchisub, etc. The websites I cited differ from the ones allowed only in that they are daily or weekly chronicles as opposed to a website with serial articles. The individuals cited, such as Elise Sutton, if that is her real name, have no greater specialization, or no greater basis for their opinion, other than their self-published ideas.

The article on LFA describes a lifestyle, something that is completely subjective. The article describes different takes on that lifestyle and different takes on the particular sexual practices within that lifestyle. What, specifically, is the basis for accepting some of those and rejecting others? In what sense are the websites Around Her Finger, Taken in Hand, She Makes the Rules, controlling male masturbation, any more reliable and high quality than the others I have reference? I expect the editors at Wiki to be neutral, objective, consistent, and fair. Is that too much? Sir Scalpel (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Sir Scalpel, 1516 EDST, Aug. 22, 2008[reply]

The consistency thing is something we're not great at - its in the nature of a mass volunteer project with devolved authority like Wikipedia I'm afraid. Over all our processes are generally fair and we try to be as objective as possible. I'm not sure what you mean by neutral. We aim to have content that fits with our neutrality policy but we're not neutral about how we do it. We have some very definite policies about our content that mean we are not a free for all for ideas on a topic. The standing or reputation of an idea and the authority of a source are fairly primary driving forces behind our content policies.

There may be several other sites being used on the Loving Female Authority article that shouldn't be. I didn't look through the whole article when I read your addition. If other things need clean up then they should be cleaned up. That doesn't mean your addition is appropriate. I suggest starting a topic on the article talk page to discuss what are appropriate sources for the topic so you get some idea of the thinking behind the current situation and can tell others how you think the article can be improved - that would be a good way to start collaborating on improving it. -- SiobhanHansa 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Could you try and follow Wikipedia's convention on talk pages and start new threads/conversation at the bottom? And please try to remember to sign your posts. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]