User talk:Taxwoman

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Taxwoman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 20:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Corset

You can reference yourself and your corset on MY page any time you want! ;-) Friday (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, as an administrator, they will let me do that sort of thing... so don't let it happen again  :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-11 17:31 --

Where do you live, just out of curiosity. 71.129.181.12

http://wikisource.org/wiki/20th_century_Models

OK

Hope I didn't offend you. -EdgarAllanToe 22:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Business & Economics

Hi, I thought you might be interested in contributing to the Portal:Business and Economics and WikiProject Business and Economics project. Pamri • Talk 16:44, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I saw your name in the facebook. Let me introduce you to User:Taxman. Quite a coincidence! :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Strappado page update

I've spun off a seperate page dedicated to strappado bondage, linking from the paragraph you added into the strappado/torture page.

--Jbc01 07:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Well done

Hi there! Thanks for your message. You are one of the amazingly few persons I've seen being actively polite at Wikipedia. It really pleases me to witness such courtesy. I would send you a reply a bit longer than this little note, about the editing; but is there any way to do it other than adding to your Talk page? Also, sorry if adding these lines to your Talk page isn't the right way of dropping you a line in the first place. President Lethe 17:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice!

Thanks for the pictures... figured I should say "Hi" :-) Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

hi

i was reading around when i found a picture of a goodlooking girl in a goodlooking school uniform. when i found out that it was a picture of a person here at wikipedia, i just had to leave a message. send me a mail at johnny4life@hotmail.com if you want to talk :) (exuse my spelling, english is not my first language...)

Catholic school uniform

Hi there. I was thinking about the article and I find it to be both very Catholic-centric and USA-centric (you might have noticed my talk on the discussion page about that). I think it might be prudent (and a bit of a compromise) to alter part of the second paragraph, which reads:

"Nearly all Catholic schools have some form of dress code, and most of them (especially those with students in the lower grade levels) have a mandatory uniform policy.".

To something like:

"Nearly all Catholic and Church of England schools have some form of dress code, and most of them (especially those with students in the lower grade levels) have a mandatory uniform policy."

.. or something similar. Of course, there might be other denominational schools that have uniforms, and that would negate the use of both Catholic and England, in favour of "Nearly all Christian denominated schools..." or something!

Anyway - let me know what you think. And if you have any thoughts on changing the title of the article, please leave a wee note on the bottom of the talk page there too. --Mal 13:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken so long to reply. I thoroughly agree with you, and have added a note to the talk page. I appreciate that in your part of the world, religion is a sensitive issue. - Taxwoman 14:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I lived in the same part of the world as yourself. I'm not actually being sensitive about the religious thing tbh - the whole point of my edit was that religious schools are just a part of our education system, and that the vast majority of schools here have a school uniform policy... state schools and the various denomonational schools. In that respect, there is nothing particularly special in the UK about the CofE or RC schools. Its different in the US though, where school uniforms aren't in the majority, but are rather more confined to RC schools (and possibly other denominations) and the other schools only have a dress code at most. Your new photo is nice by the way. --Mal 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sexual preference

Are you gay or straight? 152.163.100.66 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Save "List of school pranks" From Deletion

Hi, the article List of school pranks has been targeted by the Wikipedia Thought Police™. Please help preserve this marvellous testament to human inventiveness—and cruelty—from certain extinction by voting Keep at the article's deletion page if you haven't already done so. May algid reason never reign supreme! Thanks, Maikel 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS: This is a generic message that has been hand-posted to you as a former contributor—hope you won't mind.

why dont you get a picture for the hogtie definition?

Not a problem...

...glad to help. I know I always hate having to dig through page history to find the author of unsigned comments on my page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexual?

Hi. I just came across your user page and I wondered why you are intrested in sexual pages. Its kinda strange to me. Anyway, yo. 12.73.120.137 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Mwa ha ha ha!!!!

I am Vandalman! Fear me!!!! I shall vandalize all of Wikipedia!!!!!! Consider this a warning and do not get in the way of my evil plot little girl!!!!! Mwa ha ha ha ha!!!! The evil VandalMan! 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

pvc

lol, yeah youre right. i would contribute but i dont quite know that much. but im sure i will in the future since im a sexology major. Qrc2006 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I was not aware of you: nice meeting you. I came here after learning about you: [1]. Nothing to do with match-fixing or dating or Match fixing. --Bhadani 15:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Pleasure. Let me know if you have any more trouble. Tyrenius 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PVC link

Hi - I notice that you restored a link I took out of Latex and PVC fetishism. My understanding of WP:EL would suggest that (good though it is) it has little business being in Wikipedia. Wiki is after all an encyclopedia and the link is to a transient event? "Skin too" does have it's own link above anyway. For now I have taken it out again but will not repeat this without discussion with you. It's not to do with the site - I notice that you appear to have broad views & I would not argue with that - but to me it is a transient link. Look forward to your comments - regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

won't stress me in either direction - if you put it back I will not revert it - all the best Nigel ^(Talk) 11:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bondage hood

Thanxs for the link to the funnel gag. I didn't know there was something about it here. Now I need to find a nice free picture of a funnel hood (evil grin). Hektor 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all the great information and the warm welcome. Supergyro2k 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my talk page

I find it somewhat annoying that you put words in my mouth, without just asking "why did you think the other image was not as attractive?".

I did NOT say the "model" was more attractive. Please read my actual edit summary. I said the picture was more attractive. You're... not my type, miss, but hardly are you ugly, either; I'm the daughter of an artist with a pretty good eye for pleasing visuals, and rest assured, the model herself (yourself, that is) was NOT my complaint in regards to the picture. But that is completely beside the point, considering the picture quality - the thing I was complaining about and replacing it for- was horrible compared to the one I replaced it with, which is the reason I replaced it, and the original picture quality was poor enough that I did not actually think anyone would bother to complain about removing or replacing it. I'm frankly not quite sure why you're mad; it does not seem like it's the most flattering picture (compared to what it could be, since you look like you could look at least several times better than that with decent lighting, and no bad flash going off in your face), due to the complete lack of lighting control, the overly-obvious camera flash, and "snapshot" nature, and if I recall, slight blurring and even, if I'm not mistaken, redeye (I may or may not be remembering right on the redeye though, I'd look at the picture, but I can't recall the URL for it and at the moment, I'm getting ready to leave for the bank to deal with what appears to be fraudulent charges on my checking account, so I don't really have the time right this minute to dig through the edit history, though I did want to get back to you quickly. I just seem to remember there being redeye, and with such an obvious camera flash, it would not seem weird for their to be redeye in the picture considering you were facing the cameraperson); also, IIRC, the corset itself was not particularly visible, and despite being a genuine, traditional-type corset instead of those weird little pseudo-corsets they sell now, you really can't tell as much in that picture, which IMO, does not make it a good contrast for the "corset tops" that don't retain the corset function. Furthermore, the new picture is slightly smaller and reduces well, and most of the "Modern History" section was about how modern corsets are rarely actually corsets, which is absolutely true. The text in the picture box makes it quite clear, in my edit at least, that the top pictured is simply one of the modern "corset tops" that only imitate the look and not the function of traditional corsets - in one of the two main ways (lacing or boning) that modern imitation corsets do, at that, compared to the Prada top that featured the boning.

To be technical, I had wanted to put that laced "corset top" pic and the Prada picture up in the same section (or all down together in the Modern History section) as a comparison between different styles of tops that are referred to today as "corsets" by various designers and retailers without meeting all the traditional criteria of the term. But I don't know how to do a "three images in one box" thing. If you know how to do that or know where I can find code to copy over to produce that effect, by all means tell me and I'll do that in the "modern history" section... and then maybe we can reinstate a picture of that real corset you were wearing, only with the flash turned off and much better lighting? I would love to have a really good modern picture of a real, traditional, functional corset being worn, but I want it to have good lighting and really show the subject of corsets extremely well, you know? Perhaps a closer-up frontal shot in more controlled lighting? Runa27 20:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Corsets and enemas

That para you added was completely unreferenced. It describes such a minority practice that it doesn't belong in a general article like corset. If you can find a reference, it could go in one of the BSDM articles. Zora 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for your support! I highly appreciate it. Biruitorul 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened here?

I edit one post, and I get a message! Im outraged. Well not really at all. I think thats a neat function. Im more of an editor/cleaner upper than a contributer, but everything has to have some order to it. Thanks for the automated message.SolotaireDeaton 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

photo

What a beautiful lady! My Wife would have loved you! Chris 06:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please weigh in at the AfD nomination for Wipipedia, _again_... Chris 16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FT2 2

Hi. I do hope you don't mind, but I wondered if you could elaborate on your oppose !vote there? Thanks. --Guinnog 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, you said you felt the answer was "misleading" over "conflict", but you did not explain what you felt was misleading or conflicting beyond the fact that two editors expressed differing perspectives. I'd be worried if I thought that a mere difference of opinion would count as "conflict". Apologies if there is more to this than meets the eye. --Guinnog 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I read into it and can see why you were unhappy enough to oppose. I also dicussed it (off-wiki) with the candidate and feel sure they will not repeat such an error. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry to have bothered you. --Guinnog 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

Further to some pointers provided by user:Holdenhurst [2], it's now clear what actually happened on Tie and tease.

In short, from your comment we were all looking for a problem on the talk page. In fact the problem wasn't on there really -- it was on the article page. A late night editing session led to an accidental omission of explanation and an incorrect edit summary, which would have made the article look like it was being abruptly blanked and deleted. Unaware of this, it wasn't immediately clear why you felt there was "conflict" or hostile attempts to get rid of valid content.

The full explanation is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FT2 2, along with my apology. I'm a firm believer that an apology is useless unless one understands what it is that's apologized for, and in enough depth to try and put it right. I now feel it is finally clear why you felt aggrieved, and hence my description to clarify, and my apology, so you know that this is a sincere attempt to put it right.

Needless to say your 'oppose' view is uncontested. That's your choice, and respected. My choice is, regardless of that, to try and see where conflict may have arisen and - if able - put it right. I hope this will be accepted in that spirit, for any concerns over the article which you were caused.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ruined Orgasm

This article was on discussion for merger since last June. I think if there were negative views we would know by now.

I wrote a number of these articles, and enhanced many, so I'd say I know the subject and field. My article contributions are linked from my user page - that might help since you'll be able to see I'm a fairly heavy contributor over time to such subjects.

It's sometimes more valuable to have one full comprehensive article than several smaller ones, in such a niche area. I'd like to discuss any revert of R/O - for essentially the same reason you wished to have the other discussed? The merge on R/O seems to have lain uncontested and uncomplained about for a long time, and enacting it therefore seems appropriate.

Thanks. And thanks for your note and offer of advice :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Quick afterthought though, and this is separate from any article editing we've discussed. As you have given me your thoughts, I hope you'll be okay with me suggesting a couple I found, which might likewise be useful, perhaps. They're offered rather than thrown, so to speak, on a "use them if helpful, ditch them if not" basis :)

When "Tie and tease" was discussed, you obviously interpreteted it as a conflict, for reasons that are now probably understood. But you didn't ask me, or check, or question "you did this edit, what was your motive and purpose". There was no attempt to check facts, and no attempt to explain your feelings. There wasn't any communication beyond essentially "Oy, you are misleading". No attempt to check where my edits had come from... and hence you misassumed. The open question ("What was your intent and justification for these edits") wasn't asked, and instead an whole series of assumptions was made. You didn't know, but you believed you did.

Shortly after, discussing R/O, you offer advice: don't edit when asleep, which is good advice -- and "don't edit in areas you don't understand". Whatever you may believe you know, you didn't know what I do or don't "understand", since you hadn't at any time taken out the time to check, or find out by asking me or discussing the views shared. Again its likewise assumptive, and also tends to breed dispute rather than collaboration.

Instead of seeing good faith -- here's someone who has worked in these areas and you know, I might not agree that merging's right, but I do see where he's coming from and how he might see it as appropriate, so lets discuss -- you immediately 1/ assumed "he must be an ignoramus", and 2/ "I'm going to revert without discussion whatever because that's how I think it should be". That's the impression it risks... and I know it's not what's intended, but it is how it might be felt from outside.

My hope is you'll see the commonality of these three and consider that if someone does something that looks a "bad action", often it's worth asking what they were doing, what they know, fact-find first. That's what I did on the RfA, wait to hear your reasoning, to consider it carefully, rather than assume "she's nuts, theres no conflict" or "what the heck?" A good adage is Hanlon's razor (as modified) ..... "Never assume malice when misunderstanding, good-faith error, and different assumptions will suffice." [the original references 'when stupidity would suffice', which would be a Bad Assumption usually].

Anyhow, I hope you won't take this in any adverse way. It's my attempt to note a style of error that has led you to misassume bad faith or lack of knowledge twice in the space of a few days. That's all. All the very best regardless of whether you can use this thought or not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cites needed - any idea of reliable sources?

I think this is your sort of thing maybe. I'm trying to find some WP:RS for Edgeplay. I think the article's about right in its list -- it's been stable a long time. But it's completely uncited.

It strikes me that this could be a relatively easy one to cite, since it's essentially one topic, but I haven't found a suitable web ref or other ref listing the sorts of things commonly considered to be edgeplay, or which are often considered (even if not by everyone) as examples of it.

Any chance of help? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edgeplay

Many thanks - good links all.

I don't think edgeplay needs a warning, though, and that's for the same reason that the article on Hitler doesn't need to label him as a "bad man".

If we create a section "BDSM views on edgeplay", we can bring out all the textures of these cites - how they see it as valuable, and how they see it as risky, and how they present their views on safety and warnings. That will probably be more than enough, done properly.

Thanks again! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

French Maid

I'm hoping that you'll upload a pic of yourself wearing a french maid outfit for the French maid article. Your pictures always improve the articles ;) --Philo 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

..and come to think of it, the Playboy Bunny also --Philo 01:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations

You're welcome! I don't know much about BDSM, I just pulled those articles from Category:BDSM, so I hope they all fit. Cheers. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

British garters/suspenders

I'm sorry, your e-mail was confusing to me. I moved the british suspenders info to a new page because it was different. Why do you point out that they are different from the thing that holds up pants? I made the change because of the difference. It seems to me that having the two on the same page would do more to show the two as the same thing then separating them. I just don't understand. Could you say again what is wrong and why you reverted?

Meanwhile, I changed some things to make the new suspenders changes more clear, there is now a garter (British) and garter (American) page, in response to the dispute over the factual accuracy of the old suspenders article. See the suspenders talk page for more info. I, however, don't claim to be an expert. Wrad 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On the suspenders page. There is a British suspenders section with a link to the stocking garter page. Wrad 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so rather than combining the two articles, how about a name change of the article to garter (socks) that also has a redirect page called suspenders (British) pointing to it. I don't want the title to be messed up, and I see what you mean, but I think having them both on the same page is akin to a disambiguation page for links trying to refer to a certain type of suspenders. They need to be separated. What do you think of this idea?

Also, thanks for clarifying this to me. Wrad 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix it the best I can. Check it over when I'm done. Wrad 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes. Do you think it would be good to have the garter (British) page redirect to suspenders? Wrad 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Snake play

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Snake play, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

To be more specific, a reference to Wipipedia (or any of its mirror sites) is not considered an adequate source for an article on Wikipedia, nor is an article anywhere which you personally wrote or had anything to do with. You need to add multiple references from completely unrelated, reliable, well-known third parties that discuss snake/worm play as the main subject of their article in order to satisfy the WP:ATT and WP:NOTE policies. Charlene 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You made the list of wikipedia's...

Pretiest users!!! Congrats! check out my page user:Kingstonjr keep it going! KingstonJr 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Bondage suit for deletion

The article Bondage suit is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondage suit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Merrill Stubing (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)