User talk:Webman1000

Kink.com

Speedy deletion is not the appropriate venue for Kink.com. It has its problems, but it's not speediable. Take it to articles for deletion, but remember that Wikipedia not censored. Acroterion _(talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of pornographic actresses as spam

Please stop tagging pornographic actresses' articles as spam. The articles you tagged are not spam. No speedy deletion category would apply to those articles that you tagged. If you wish to start a deletion discussion for those articles, please follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. As noted to you above, Wikipedia is not censored. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: The pornographic actresses' articles were not spam. They meet the pornographic actor criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Your assertion that all of the articles were created by Kink.com does not have any corroborating evidence. If you wish to pursue the deletion of the articles, please follow the proper procedures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but none of the five articles will be speedy deleted for being spam or not indicating why they are notable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted deletion of Kink.com

I've responded to your activity concerning the Kink.com and other porn-related articles at Talk:Kink.com. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above, it may not have been your intention but when replying to Iamcuriousblue you removed their comments from Talk:Kink.com. I've restored Iamcuriousblue's comments. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:Gogo Dodo, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Secondly, your signature does not meet our signature policy, please see WP:SIG for our policy on such. As a standard, your signature must either link to your talk page or your userpage. This is your first warning. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to me very closely. I am not in you and Gogo's dispute, all I care about is your signature. First, let me start off by saying that <sig> is not a tag here, it has never been a tag here, and will likely never be a tag here. Secondly, if you want to have a custom signature, I suggest you check the 'use raw signature' box in your preferences, and third, I suggest you fix your signature markup, as it is currently broken. It should look like this:

[[User:Webman1000|Webman1000]] ([[User talk:Webman1000|talk]])

This of course, would create this:

Webman1000 (talk)

Lastly, and although I may have said this above,

I am not in your dispute and Gogo's about the content of articles, so leave me out of it.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments to This Flag once was red

Re: this comment: If this were a realistic scenario, WP:OFFICE would have something to say about it. They and the Wikimedia Foundation are far closer to the firing line legally speaking than administrators. Also, being decent people, if the editors or administrators WERE closer to the firing line, the office would announce that and possibly take steps to protect editors, such as relocating the servers to another country. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also slightly confused as to why you made the comment; as far as I can tell the only comment I've made to you was the comment above, about removing other editors' comments. I don't think I've expressed an opinion re: the article in question.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make that comment, Webman1000 (talk · contribs) did. I happened to be watching your talk page and saw his comment to you. I had some useful information for him that was related to the comment he put on your talk page, so I put it here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean my comment to appear to be addressed to you, but to Webman1000. In hindsight my use of indention ain't the greatest ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators Noticeboard/incidents

Hello, Webman1000. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent nastygram

You know Webman, I don't care what your "ethical code" is or interpretation of laws of various countries, Wikipedia has its own set of rules and guidelines, and the kind of censorship you're trying to push is in definite violation of them. I'll also point out their your extremely uncivil behavior and implied legal threats are not appreciated in the least, and you keep this up, you will be blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your views on links to pornography websites

I know I'm late, but I've read your contributions, and time and time again you make the point that children could access pornographic content from links on wikipedia.

the child's parents should really be supervising their session on the internet to ensure that the child doesn't access pornography, something I believe is called responsible parenting
websites with pornographic content are required by law to have a page stating that the content of the website is unsuitable for minors, with an option not to enter the website

these two factors combined make access of pornography impossible. and there are content filters that one can use on a computer, to restrict access to unsuitable websites as well as having a 'blacklist' of websites to manually do the job of the content filter, making your argument null and void. ConconJondor (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]