Misplaced Pages

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Ejaculation. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Misplaced Pages to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. NeilN 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Let me know if you have any questions. --NeilN 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, 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. --SineBot (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, 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. --SineBot (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

_noisy jinx 02:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

_noisy jinx 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

_noisy jinx 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy prohibits censorship. As I said, the censorship policy considers says that an image being objectionable is not sufficient grounds for removal. Inline linking, through hundreds of discussions *IS* considered to be censorship based on those grounds. I am not saying that inline linking is prohibited on Misplaced Pages under any circumstances, for any reason. I am saying that using inline linking to shield an image that an individual editor objects to *is* prohibited by Misplaced Pages policy.

I think that you are trying to shield the image from view because the image is objectionable to you. Your RFC, in my opinion, is an attempt to take a poll to see if there are other editors that think the image is objectionable to them. My point is that if you could line up 100 editors who all felt that the image was objectionable that it would not be sufficient criteria to remove, censor, or inline link the video -- based on Wikpedia policy.

As the video represents the topic exceptionally well, without being pornographic, and illustrates the topic execeptionally well, trying to remove it based on that would fail. You must admit that someone watching the video immediately understands the topic of ejaculation. If they are not text oriented, or do not have a large scientific vocabulary, or just have problems reading large amounts of text, the video brings clarity to understand the topic in a few seconds. So, for most editors, not only is the video not objectionable, it is extremely appropriate for the article.

Consider also please -- if someone thinks that they may be offended by the video -- can't they just decline to click on it? Is it not already, essentially inline linked in a fashion without censorship?

Best to you,

Atom (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your comment on my user talk page: As you will see there are several editors who wish it either removed or behind a link, so this is not a case as you suggest of just myself - I see you have not read through the recent talk, In favour of an Inline Link are Apatcher, myself and I shall now go back to the archives and I suggest you do aswell to see the others who have suggested this in the past.DMSBel (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the hisrory of the article will show that there have been many people who have wanted the image removed, and yet consensus has kept it there.

How can there be many who wanted it removed and still be consensus to keep it? Consensus has not kept it there, it has been kept because of page protection onlyDMSBel (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have said, an inline link has been shown to be not acceptable as it is judged to be censorship. If you have 10 other people who state that view, it would not overeide Misplaced Pages policy to not censor using inline links.

The poicy is not set in stone and may be altered. Peoples views change, those who thought inline lines to be unacceptable may change their opinion, especially in the light of further discussion. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is so final as you suggest.DMSBel (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, as I have said -- the fact that it is a video, and any user can merely decline to click on it is itself an inline link. Atom (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No that just will not do Atom, INLINE LINK throughout this debate has been taken to mean not visible till clicked on, not simply not playing. Do not redefine the terms in the debate. I read through the archive to make sure I knew how Inline Link was understood and used before starting the RfC. Please read APatchers comments Archive 13. You'll see he is amply qualified, and been involved in these sorts of discussion before, and not merely here at Misplaced Pages - he represents expert comment. Read what he has said.DMSBel (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference between an inline link, and the video link is only that there is an image on the video link, so that the reader has an idea as to the content. One could add text to the Inline link to describe in words what the content is. So --from my perspective, is that you don't wish the user to see what the content of the video is. You want to remove the image of the video. Why do you want to do that? What purpose does that serve?

Ok so the inline link can be used with a caption and is not the same as a video link. We are in agreement there. The image of the video is currently (sorry to be explicit) - a long drip of semen hanging from some random guys penis. Do you not see a problem with that?DMSBel (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My purpose in asking you what the difference is it to underline the fact that the only difference is the image. You've agreed that your main objection is that the image is visible. You say that your concern is that the image is objectionable to you. It isn't really the video that is the proble, but that you find the image on the video objectionable. It is as if you perceive the image of a male ejaculating as pornographic or something. It is an medical/anatomical/human sexuality image with nothing erotic about it.

Your main desire to remove the image is because you find it objectionable. Misplaced Pages content disclaimer warns you and others that they may find objectionable images n Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages policy prohibits Censorship, and explicitly describes that ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." And "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer)." Isn't this precisely what you are trying to do? Wouldn't efforts to find an image or video that you feel is better for the article, or illustrates the topic better be more fruitful than trying to fight against long standing Misplaced Pages policies? Atom (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for editor Apatcher, you will note that I awarded him the the Human Sexuality Barnstar on behalf of the Sexology and Sexuality group on Misplaced Pages for his many valuable contributions. I have discussed issues with him many times. I consider him to be a wikipedia collegue, even if we do not always agree.

The reason I have not participated in the past few weeks discussion is that I have been on Wikibreak, and responded to your RfC. As I said, the topic of putting objectionable content under a link has come up many times before in the past.

You will note that the result of that 2007 discussion that Apatcher, myself and others discussed was to decline to censor the image. Having the image in the article, and not censored has been the consensus ever since then.

That is just it, the discussion because of how it was framed then was polarised into removal or keeping, that is always the problem here. Frame it like that you get no consensus, you get nowhere. An INLINE LINK is not removal however - that was not made clear in the earlier discussion.DMSBel (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this is because the use of the inline link is almost always considered to be censorship. Since Censorship is prohibited, that leaves only removing the image from the article as an option. Since removing an image because it is objectionable is not allowed, that leaves removing it because there is a better image, or because the existing one is not related to the topic of the article. So, it is not so much polarization as it is that there are few options left after establishing that censorship is not acceptable. Atom (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to invite Apatcher to participate in your RFC? I am sure that his opinions would be valuable.

I would certainly welcome his input, I do not like to wheel people in though and have resisted doing that - and have argued my own position myself. I you wish to invite him please do so I have no objection.DMSBel (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think that an inline link would be valuable, and that using it in the context that you mention is acceptable for Misplaced Pages, can you give me an example of any of the three million articles where it is used effectively? I can not think of one single use of the inline link. Not any in the myriad of sexuality articles I monitor for sure. If you aren't inclined for my benefit -- consider that it could help bolster your case within the ejaculation article. Atom (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We won't know till we try.DMSBel (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I take that to mean that you haven't yet found any other Misplaced Pages articles that use an inline link? Atom (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In reference to "(...)Enric who amazingly seems to just be waiting here to put it back, though I could be mistaken (...)"

I edit a lot of different stuff in the English wikipedia. During periods of days and even weeks I only participate in discussions and minor edits, and then for a few das I edit one or more articles in depth. Sometimes I edit at other languages, and those edits don't appear in my contributions here. For example, in the time between reverting you at the article and writing this message I went to the catalan wikipedia, I checked my watchlist there, and I put some medieval population figures because I saw that someone was saying that a certain city was the capital when it actually wasn't . I see the changes that you do at the Ejaculation page because, when I am not actually changing some article, I check my "watchlist", and every time an article watched by me gets edited by someone, it pops up to the top of the watchlist (when I refresh the watchlist page, it appears at the top or near to the top of the list). This way I can check if someone is vandalizing those specific articles or introducing misinformation, or simply seeing if someone is working on improving them and help them out if necessary. The Ejaculation page is just one of the many pages that I watch.

These days I have been seeing the Ejaculation article and its associated talk page at the top of my watchlist because of the frequent edits, that's how I have been following the discussions. It's not because I keep visiting the page in purpose to see the new messages. On the contrary, the new messages pop up on their own in my custom list, and then I can decide to visit them or not, or I can ignore the apparitions in the watchlist until I see that a few comments have accumulated and then read them all at once so I don't have to be visiting the page each time someone makes a one line long comment.

(Your own watchlist is in the "my watchlist" link at the top right corner of the page, and you can add pages to the watchlist clicking in the "watch" tab, in the right part of the same row of tabs that have the "edit this page" tab and the "history" tab.) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

HI again: Could you please explain your action to remove an image from the ejaculation article? I would appreciate it if you not remove them without some reasoning consistent with Misplaced Pages policies. You should not remove an image because it is "objectionable" to you. In fact Misplaced Pages policy explicitly states "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." Thanks, Atom (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that you are a new editor. I hope that our disagreement about censorship will not dissuade you from participating in Misplaced Pages. I noted that you have few edits so far, but that some of them have been in the Humanism article. I myself am a Buddhist, and a secular humanist (as Buddhists are non-theistic). Rather than a Christian Humanist as I suppose that you are. I feel certain that the two of us have many more beliefs and values in common, than differences.

Too often I see someone motivated to participate in Misplaced Pages start from a deletionist or critical perspective. That is, looking places where they disagree to remove content. I am not suggesting that you will be such an editor. My hope is that you will focus on your areas of education and experience and substantively ADD content to articles within your realm of expertise. By taking actions to add valuable content, increase the clarity of articles and perhaps even create stubs for new articles that do not yet exist, you can make Misplaced Pages better for everyone.

Initially there is a learning curve of becoming used to Misplaced Pages policies regarding how to edit, and how to get along with other editors, and when to involve an administrator. I know you have your toe in the water on both of those, having read about the no censorship policy, and having places an RfC.

In summary, I wish you success and encourage you to contribute. I don't wish to scare you away just because of a minor misunderstanding on policy.

Peace, and best for you, Atom (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to Talk:Ejaculation, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. You realize that 80% of the last 50 edits on this page are yours right? Might I suggest taking more time in deciding what you want to write? NeilN 08:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did with this edit to the page Talk:Ejaculation. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Res2216firestar 03:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Res2216firestar 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not. --NeilN 06:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah you're right, was frustrated and apologise - I will delete it. I realise the need for people to revert vandalism, but NeilN you can see that this (the deletions on the ejac.. page) is nothing to do with vandalism, yet you have more or less tackled me like I was a vandal from I came on this page, your flashing lights seem to follow me everywhere!! DMSBel (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I deeply apologize to you, DMSBel, for several things...

• First, and foremost, I am sorry for our disagreement about the items in the article we've been discussing. I do not like to disagree with other editors, especially about things like this. I have been in your position and have argued against inclusion of such items in the past, just like you are now. So please forgive me, as somewhere while I aged, I changed my mind about such things. And in a moment I shall tell you why I changed my mind.
• Secondly, I am sorry to discuss this with you here on your Talk page. I know I am breaking the rules by doing so. Discussion about encyclopedia articles should take place on the article's discussion page. So again I ask for your forgiveness, for it would be embarrassing for me to write these things to you more publicly.
• Next, I am deeply sorry that you have been driven to great lengths, such as going to the admins seeking policy change, because you feel that several editors, some far less involved than you in the article, have ganged up on you. And I'm sorry to have been a part of that.
• And finally, I am sorry that somewhere along the way, I changed my mind about including such as the images and film in Misplaced Pages articles. I said I would tell you why, and here is why...

In cases like this article, I sat back and I asked myself why I was against the inclusion of such images, but I was not against the article itself. The reason I was not against the article is because the editors had written the text to be very medical, very "clinical" sounding. So the article itself, while it described in graphic text the topic of the article, was easily acceptable to be included on Misplaced Pages. So why, then, I asked myself, am I against the inclusion of graphic images that, in the opinion of others, made the topic of the article more understandable to some general readers? As much as I disliked the images and film for several reasons, I finally had to conclude to myself that the images were not, in reality, any better or worse than the graphic text descriptions of the topic. So I found myself changing my mind. I did not change my mind about the disgusting nature of the images and film, but I did change my mind and felt that the images and film are no better, nor worse, than the graphic text. If there are no images, then some readers can still imagine in their minds what happens just by reading the text. However, there are some readers whose imaginations are more "hearing-centered" rather than "reading-centered". That just means that those readers, by only having the text to read, have trouble picturing in their minds what happens. And those particular readers (we have no way of knowing just how many) are benefited by the inclusion of visual aids, such as the images and the film. So I once again ask your forgiveness for changing my mind, and for putting yourself and myself at odds about the inclusion of the pictures and the film.

So I sincerely hope that you can find it within you to forgive me for these things, and if you truly desire for me to make a public apology to you, just ask me and I will do so. I will write a brief apology to you on the article's Talk page if you so desire. Thank you very much for reading, and I wish the best of everything to you and yours!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, DMSBel, for your response on my Talk page. And thank you for your apology as well, although there is nothing to forgive. You have, under the circumstances, been very civil for the most part. And as I indicated above, I do understand how frustrating these debates can be from both perspectives. As you indicated on my Talk page, I shall be glad to return and continue to add my comments where I think they might be of help. Thank you again for your response, and I continue to wish you and yours only the best!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

59% of my edits are script assisted which means about 41% are not straight reverts (e.g., adding sources, adding categories, doing disambiguation work, fixing text, commenting on user and article talk pages, etc.). And you better know policies and guidelines damn well when you're reverting non-vandal edits and doing CSD work - WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:CSD, WP:EL to name a few. --NeilN 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You can specify a custom signature in your preferences. My font is "Century Gothic", which you could specify with this: <font face="Century Gothic">DMSBel</font>. Equazcion 04:57, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

<font face="Georgia">] <small>]</small> (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to check "Sign my name exactly as shown." --NeilN 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, 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. --SineBot (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use someone's signature when referring to them, just use something like User:Example, per Misplaced Pages:Signature_forgery#1, thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is totally ridiculous. Are you accusing me of sig forgery now? DMSBel (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Had to read it again to make sure I had not missed something. If there is a guideline for how to refer to users in an investigation please point me to it. DMSBel (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm AGF, and not accusing you of signature forgery. I assume you meant no harm in it. It was just a friendly, courteous notice. As far as pointing to users in an investigation, just link to them like User:Example. CTJF83 chat 02:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Signing your posts

I've noticed that you sign your posts by both typing User:DMSBel and typing four tildes ~~~~. Since you aren't signed in, this means that your signature includes both your username and your IP address. Instead, you should simply log in to your DMSBel account. When you have logged in, typing four tildes will stamp your posts with your username and the date, instead of your IP address. Please don't sign posts with both your username and your ip as this is confusing for other editors, who won't know where to contact you. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Cum shot, you may be blocked from editing. Look, we all recognize you don't like these sorts of images or topics or...something. But taking it upon yourself to remove it unilaterially is only going to wind up poorly for you. You know there isn't consensus for your actions. I know you've tried this sort of thing before and been called on it. Therefore there's nothing left to do except push up the standard warnings, which will eventually lead to a block if you continue. Please work to improve articles or get consensus for your ideas if if they are controversial. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - But really not a subject for inclusion in a encyclopedia.DMSBel (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cum shot (how's that for a topic title?)

Actually, Prosfilaes' edit is a direct quote from the book HalfShadow 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you refering to the topic title for? Anyone would think you where trying to be provocative DMSBel (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If its a quote put quote marks on it and site a online reference - we don't all read that stuff. DMSBel (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh that quote. No. It might be a direct quote, but it is still specious reasoning from the author, and is therefore unreliable. Telling me there is a book somewhere with it in is useless. We determine if what the author is saying is specious, and decide on that whether to use their quotes. DMSBel (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry; I could care less one way or another, I'm just commenting in passing. It seemed as though you were jumping on the guy, so... HalfShadow 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So whats with the reference to the title. Anyhow, read the prior sentence in the book you cited. I am glad you came up with that link it has actually clarified the context: It says: this occurs in both homosexual and hetrosexual pornography so that this (ejaculating on someone) cannot be interpreted as an expression of contempt against women onlyDMSBel (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't come onto my talk page to discuss article features; that belongs on the talk page of the article. You don't get to dictate that your intro, against every other editor, must go on the page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

This is just a quick note to make sure you are aware you have reverted the same edit three times today at cum shot and if you do again you will have broken the three revert rule which you may be blocked for. Smartse (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cum shot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Returning to the same article and resuming your prior behavior is a very bad idea. Please stop reverting other editors and try to achieve consensus on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagteam on that article, just asking? Editors should make it more clear which reverts (not merely the article) they are warning against, 3RR, does not refer to reverts made on different sections.DMSBel (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from Ejaculation. However, Misplaced Pages is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. You have the option to configure Misplaced Pages to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cyclopia 14:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ejaculation. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Note on breaking up comments

Just a note on commenting: it is generally recommended not to break up another editors comments with your own, but rather to respond as one post. If the comment you are responding to is particularly long and it would be unclear if you responded once at the end, you should sign each part of your response as if it were a separate post. You should also copy-paste the original signature of the post you are responding to onto the end of each section that you interrupt. (You can also do this with Template:Interrupted.) The relevant guidelines are here under the subheading "Interruptions". --Danger (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, not sure how it happened. Will try and watch that for again.DMSBel (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Cyclopia 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not delete or otherwise change other editor's comments. The edit in question is here: JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents . Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Please do not call other editors "a bunch of idiots", or other uncivil comments such as you made in this edit: JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Ejaculation are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. I'm sorry, but the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss article improvements. These edits do not do that: , , , , , JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, you may hate me but I hope you can listen. Please stop for a second and think. Think clearly. There is an unanimous topic ban looming on you. It will be, with most probability, be enforced soon. There's even an admin supporting an indefinite block on your account. There is unanimous consensus that your actions have been disruptive.

Now, think about why this happened. Ok, you think that keeping these images is insane. Fine. Nobody here agrees with everything on WP, and I myself see a lot of things that look insane to me happening every day. We argue for these things and we try to change things. That's fine as well. But endlessly insisting and attempting to force changes against every consensus, and refusing to listen every time cannot be tolerated.

This is not a problem of the images or not. This is a behavioural problem. Try to understand that sometimes you should simply let go. Mind you, it is difficult for everyone, and I've been in your situation (fighting against consensus) often. The difference between me and you is that, once I see where consensus heads, I stop trying to force what I think, stop arguing on the specific issue and move on, or that I try to compromise and find alternative solutions. Sometimes I win, often I do not, well, that's life, you can't always get what you want. Try to think the same. Please. Try at least to learn something from this experience. --Cyclopia 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have both an "oppose" and a "support" for "no image".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the ANI discussion - there is a community consensus that you should be topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, broadly interpreted, across all pages. I have enacted and noted the ban, and it is now in effect. The discussion closure is here and the logged editing restriction is here.

The exact text of the enacted restriction, distilled from the discussion, is:

DMSBel is topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly, including talk pages and Misplaced Pages space pages, for an indefinite period.

You are not allowed to discuss the topic itself anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including your pages, talk pages, Misplaced Pages space pages, etc. The ban specifically says that it is to be interpreted broadly; pushing the limit on related topics is not recommended.

You may, if necessary, ask for clarification about the ban, and can appeal it at a later date to the community or to the Arbitration Committee.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The format there is unusual. You're not supposed to put your reply at a location like you would at a talk page. Everything you say to anyone should all be located together in the section that has your name at the top. So, you ought to move your latest comment up. If not, someone else will likely do it for you. That is called "refactoring".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I orginally had it in my own comments section, and then moved it down not knowing that it was incorrect. I'll move it back again.DMSBel (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Since you're now talking to the "supreme court" of Misplaced Pages, you ought to be sure to include some slight edit summary even for a minor edit. It's no big deal, but it couldn't hurt. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a subcommittee either. Here's a good link if you weren't already aware. Good luck.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like your ArbCom request is still active. It's an interesting case with several timely issues involved. If it's accepted, then I hope you don't mind too much seeing it through, even though it's a pain in the neck for you. Anyway, take it easy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)