Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:45, 23 September 2006

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom, and use descriptive headlines when starting new topics.
(Leave a new message)

Archive

April 2006 through September 2006 • Archive 1

sexual desire survey

I have removed all links to other sites

sexual identities

i beg to differ, polyamorous and swinger are sexual identities, allthoughth they are not sexual orientations, they are identities, i myself am polyamorous and it is very much my sexual identitiy! ill put those back fro the mean timeQrc2006 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I am polyamorous also. It is not sexual identity, it is a relationbship type, as apposed to Polyandry, Polygamy and Monogamy. Also relationship types. I won't argue that there is not sex within those relationship structures, however I would not call that "identity". Please refer to various sources for the definition of "sexual identity" and you will sess they refer to a persons gender identification more than anything else. Swinging is not an identity either, but rather also a kind of relationship structure. I'll discuss this in more detail later, when I have more time. Atom 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks, i put them back in under other, so as to not label them identities specifcially, i think they are important to mention in this boxQrc2006 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing useless images

Hi! FYI, I base my comments and removal on many precedents by Jimbo and other longtime editors. Jokestress 04:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your effort to communicate. I'm a bit frustrated that you didn't just discuss it with me before doing three reverts. I edit pretty much exclusively sexology and sexuality articles, probably more than any other editor. Many of them have pictures. I understand that there is discussion right now at higher levels regarding non-censorship versus explicit images, expecially photographs versus drawings. I've been working on negotiating this very point with a variety of people about the image on the masturbation article, and I put in, and am an advocate of the current klimt drawing, over the more explicit images suggested in the talk pages. This kind of dicussion comes up often in the articles I edit. If there were more well defined policies regarding those, I would follow them.

What I'm not sure I understand is why you don't think any of the images depicts the act mentioned. They are all of oral sex, and several of them clearly are deep enough to likely be deep throat.

In my opinion, you should have left the image after I reverted back, discussed it, and as I asked for in the talk pages, get opinions of several other people. Then, after consensus, move accordingly. Forcing your view over the view of several others just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In that spirit, I will leave the image alone until we can get more consensus, or a better picture.

What exactly do you think would be an ideal image to act as a good visial lead for the this article?

Regards,

Atom 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd either need a side view image or illustration to make a picture worth including. Please see Anus talk page for an incredibly long and contentious discussion on inclusion of photographic images, and keep in mind that's not even a sex act. You are right that there are no clear guidelines, but that picture is just bad, in terms of both quality and usefulness. Sorry if I seemed rash, but that article gets a lot of vandalism, so I tend to be bold when reverting. That's neither the first nor last image added there. Jokestress 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Argentine National Gendarmerie

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid we haven't worked through our differences at all. I have simply not edited the article since the original problem, since I have no desire to get into a revert war with such an apparently arrogant individual as the other party. The issues remain. I do not believe that everything needs to be translated into (frequently poor) English. Titles of agencies, departments, ranks etc are far better and more useful to the reader in the original language, with translations if necessary. -- Necrothesp 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What changes do you feel are need for the article to be of better quality? Atom 01:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My main objection is that I copyedited the article for style and English, and giving precedence to the original Spanish titles of branches, positions and ranks, but Mesoso simply mass reverted everything I'd done because he disliked the use of Spanish. -- Necrothesp 10:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the description of "an apparently arrogant individual" is entirely unreasonable and uncalled-for, and this sort of attitude can only cause difficulties.

One can not say I dislike the use of Spanish any more than one can say Necrothesp dislikes the use of English. I try to use Spanish where appropriate and English where appropriate. The idea I "dislike" Spanish is untrue & entirely without evidence.

As far as this idea of my "mass revert" is concerned, I would like to know what i reverted that does not relate directly to the current debate. The current version, as I last left it, includes much of Necrothesp's editing, but not those edits for which I have given explicit explanations.

Mesoso 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from both of you for your comments regarding the article. I read the latest talk on the article and it seems we can proceed as described there, and see how it goes. Atom 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not dislike English. I am English. But I do think that Spanish titles should take precedence in an article about an organisation in a Spanish-speaking country. I think it is more useful to the reader for them to do so. As far as "mass reverting" is concerned, you reverted almost everything I had added, even where those edits were pure copyedits. I'm sorry if you think my comment about arrogance was unreasonable and uncalled for, but I think it's a fair comment following your comments on the article's talk page and your utter refusal to accept that Misplaced Pages policy does not actually support your line on language. You didn't seem willing to discuss anything whatsoever, refused to accept evidence that opposed your arguments, and were on the verge of beginning a revert war. However, I would rather reach a compromise than argue so I shall do as Atom suggests and re-edit the article. -- Necrothesp 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You both has expressed opinions about things that have happened in the past. I can appreciate how frustrating it must be, from either perspective. I know I have been in similar situations. Perhaps I am overly optomistic, and I didn't go throuth the process both of you have. But, you've both gotten to express your feelings, and I know we are primarily concerned about the quality of the article, not rehashing past events. I'm working on the assumption of WP:AGF, and I believe both of you have shown a good faith effort towards making the article better. In the interests of WP:civil, let's turn from tha past towards finding a consensus vision for the article. 11:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I am only interested in producing good, informative articles, not warring with other users, and I'm sure Mesoso wants the same. -- Necrothesp 12:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mesoso, could you review the latest edit, and suggest areas that you feel need changing, before we proceed to an edit from your perspective? Thanks Atom 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Penis Size (good revert)

Good call reverting my latest edit to my previous edit. Was trying to make it less wordy but actually did the opposite. I blame it on staying up too late, heh. Well just wanted to say I actually agree with someones revert for once. --Wits 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help on police brutality

Well, the headline says it all, I guess. I hated working unilaterally but couldn't drum up any interest. I possibly should have requested comments some time ago. --Ginkgo100 19:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I think we have a workable solution. If you don't find time to get to those references, eventually someone will. In the mean time, I think it looks a bit better. Atom 00:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting external links on Female dominance

What part of WP external links guidelines is dansfemdomlinks.com violating? It is a large directory of highly relevant links and it is not a commercial site, and it does not contain excessive advertising. Why did you delete it? Also, why do you keep putting up a commercial site Femdom Cartoon with stolen copyrighted images in it's place? user:ClarkKent22

Hi ClarkKent22. Thanks for asking, I am happy to explain, and double check to be sure that my judgement was correct.

I just took another look at the web site "dansfemdomlinks.com". I edit a great number of sexolgy and sexuality articles on wikpedia. I see people putting in links to their favorite places all of the time. IN this case, it looks like a very interesting site. However, right off the bat, there are links to Pro Dommes and banners for commercial sites all over the place. Misplaced Pages standards that apply to this are: Misplaced Pages:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. " and also, Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Just because a web site is related in some way to the topic, does not mean that it needs to be listed here. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to collect links. For the web site to be properly linked, there would need to be text in the article that was directly related to important points in the article, and then there would be a citation to the web site as the source of that information. But, that information would need to be accurate and verifiable, and not just opinion, or original research.

So, I'm sorry to say that as interesting as that site is (and I am a big fan of FemDommes) it is not what we would consider to be an appropriate external link. Regards to you, Atom 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am new to wikipedia, at least as a contributor, so I might be wrong, but I have to disagree with you there. Misplaced Pages:External_links specifically mentions that linking to relevant directory pages is permissible, and while the site in question does contain links to commercial sites as well as free sites, those are not paid advertisements. The site simply links to any page related to female domination, free or commercial and it has more such links than any other directory I know of. There are only a handfull of paid banners on the site, far less than on many other sites that are happily linked from[REDACTED] in many other articles, so that can hardly qualify as "objectionable amount of advertising". Also, you don't seem to be reading the guidelines correctly. The site does not have to be directly referenced in the article, in fact such sites should not be linked in External Links section but in References section - see the point 1 in What should be linked to: "Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links." User:ClarkKent22

Christian Democracy Template

I saw you removed the christian democracy template from several articles with clear relation to the subject (e.g. sphere sovereignty was created because it was on the template. Why? C mon 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw the template added to one article that was only tangential, and tracked back to a few more. Perhaps in this case, (sphere sovereignty) I was mistaken. As I recall I didn't see the connection with the philosophy and christian democracy, but that is not my area of expertise. My apologies. Atom 20:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted all your edits concerning this. The links between social justice (which has paragraph on christian social teaching), subsidiarity (invented by the catholic church), sphere sovereignty (invented by an orthodox protestant) are all very strong. Removing the template without discussion is unacceptable. C mon 21:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree with you on those issues. It is your area of expertise, not mine. Numerous times, in the[REDACTED] areas I work on, people throw in templates without asking anyone, and often I take them out. I'm sure that you have put a great deal of work in those areas, and I had no desire to step on your toes. However, recall that everyone can edit the articles as they chose. I won't argue the points. I'll stay in my areas of expertise, and not worry about your stuff. Atom 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

reverted addition of useful weblinks to circumcision article

Hi there! You just reverted my addition of two weblinks to the Opposing circumcision links section in the circumcision article stating in your revert comment "wikipedia not a colleciton of web links". Which is true but that is a links section headlined "Opposing circumcision" and those are useful links for concerning that very headline. So your revert was inappropriate, which I don't take personal, but please explain yourself in the discussion. 87.78.150.238 14:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your question. Actually, I removed ALL of the extraneous web links, not just one position. If there is useful information in the web links, that info should be brought into the article, and cited properly. If it is supporting information in the article, it should be in the references section, and meet Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding NPOV, NOR and Verifiability. Often someone uses an external web link to a highly POV article (sometimes just someone opinion, sometimes citable data) because they can't get away with putting it in the article. As this is an encylopedia, and not a colleciton of web links, I removed ALL of the external links. Thanks again. Atom 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to Sexually mutilated child contains links to graphical content which cannot be cited and which is totally NPOV (more in quality than anyone could ever sustain without becoming opposed to circumcision) and needs no verification and it shows the facts of what circumcision is in a totally graphical and NPOV way. Therefore I consider your revert POV pushing vandalism. 87.78.150.238 15:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I'm sorry that you feel the way that you do. I Assume Good Faith. In your case, I was not critical of your desire to add what you feel is useful information. I am trying to enforce Misplaced Pages Policy. In fact, there are numerous examples of the policy not being enforced properly. The one you cite seems to be one. I edit sexology and sexuality articles, and am part of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality. My focus is therefore often in that area, and so have not been aware of the example you gave. Even though there may be many articles that do not follow the policies closely does not mean that others should not meet those policies. This article just happened to be withing the sexology and sexuality area that I focus within.

There is some leeway for putting some external links that are directly relevant to an article, as long as they do not disturb the balance of the NPOV of the article, and they are sites with verifiable information (not opinion/original research). In this case, in my opinion, the number of external links just seemed to be a projection of the ongoing pro/con circumcision debate on the talk page. If you disagree with my judgement call, which I respect, I am happy to discuss it and find a compromise or consensus with others. Perhaps the three or four links you added (and I am not sure what they contained) made the entire section of external links just too large. Atom 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I added only two links and you know it. And one of them is necessary because it contains links to graphical content which displays what circumcision is. So look there www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org and find out yourself if you think the link is useful. But deleting the whole link section is simple vandalism, and it happened the moment I added two (that's 2) useful links. That makes me suspicious to say the very least and I think you should reconsider your actions. 87.78.178.111 15:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the links. I don't have any idea which "side" of the argument you may be on. You could very well be supporting views that I agree with, I don't know, but that isn't the point. The content of the links you added had nothing to do with what I talk about above. Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, not a collection of links. When you added a few new links (two or three) I noticed that and reverted, and then removed all the web links.

If there is content on a web site that is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages, then the web link is not acceptable either. Deleting the whole link section is consistent with Wikpedia policy of not collecting links. This particular article is not an article against circumcision, nor is it one supporting circumcision. It is supposed to address the subject in a neutral and scientific manner, with all facts either pro or con supported by verifiable information, per[REDACTED] policy.

If you have useful information that will improve the article and make it better, then please add it to the pertinent section, or add a new section, add the content, and support it with citations that meet Misplaced Pages standards. External web links are not provided so that you can add content that doesn't meet the standards for normal inclusions, it is for referencing web based material that DOES meet the[REDACTED] standards for No Original Research, and Verifiability in support of facts discussed in the article. Atom 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am opposing circumcision personally and I believe that DOES matter. The link www.sexuallymutilatedchild.com presents NPOV about circumcision in a way words never can. If anyone can watch the video links provided on that page and still not be opposing circumcision he has to be a monster. That's all I have to say. I will leave this whole mess of an edit war now. Larry Sanger was right in stating that trolls have taken over wikipedia. But the trolls have not won, only Misplaced Pages has lost. 87.78.149.196 15:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lion page editing

I must take issue with your categorization of my deletion of the text on the lion page as "vandalism." Although you refer to the action being "against consensus," in reading the lion talk page it seems to me that there is far from a consensus that the passage is worthy of inclusion in the article itself. I will not revert the edit back to the way it was, but please understand that there is not a consensus on that issue as there are a number of opposing views on the subject. I will continue to present my own view on the talk page rather than reverting the edit but I do not consider what I did to be vandalism. Thank you. 149.79.54.95 15:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume good faith on your part. I gave you a blanking warning because you blanked an entire controversial section with no previous discussion on the talk page. I did not mean to offend you, only to warn you that your actions were not the proper method for expressing your disagreement.

I am participating in the discussion on the talk page, because we are trying to reach a consensus. I responded to the RfC to assist in that. So far, we had come to an agreement (cautious, and still new) that the wording being used (the whole section that you blanked) was finally acceptable to all parties participating in the discussion.

Perhaps you can see that when you came along and blanked that section, after many people had agreed to the wording, you upset the balance, and basically steppe don the toes of all of the people who agree with you, as well as the ones who do not agree with you. I think is is perfectly fair for you to not agree with some of the things in the article. But, if you want it changed, you need to go through discussion on the talk page and get other to agree. An alternative might have been for you to edit that section to your liking and suggest that as a compromise that everyone could live with. But given the RfC and active discussion, in this case discussing it first might have been better for that also.

I hope that you will participate with us in finding wording that improves the quality of the article, while being comfortable for all of the participants. Atom 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision

I apologize for some people's speed to jump on your case - and my use of popups was not mean to infer vandalism, just a fast way to restore the links. I also notice that it seems you're unfamiliar with the history of the article.

The issue with Circumcision is that it's not : "nor is it one supporting circumcision" - right now it is supporting circumcision. It's missing significant ammounts of information - specifically about the long term disincentives for circumcision, while listing every dubious benefit. It also neglects to cite many of the criticisms of the studies that show those dubious benefits - sometimes because they're so new (like the Auvert "60% protection from AIDS" study, that was severely methodologically flawed, as well as cut short).

Most of us, like myself, that oppose non-voluntary non-theraputic circumcision (i myself am a victim of such) merely want the article unbiased - it's currently pro-circ biased in sections and neutral in others. The biggest offending section is the one I mentioned above. Jakew is the single most prolific censor of edits to increase NPOV standards compliance in existance. He abuses the rules (like citing a rule that doesn't actually apply to something, or saying something fails that rules standards when it doesn't) to maintain the pro-circumcision POV in the article. He also will insist that studies that show circumcision to be unneccesary are being miscited when used to show things (like the foreskin being the most highly innervated part of the human penis), etc when they are properly being cited. He is a POV warrior with a long history of frustrating editors who attempt to balance the article. Lordkazan 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have been watching some of the discussion for a short period of time. It is clear to me that there is a great deal of controversy in this article. It is not my desire to take any sides. It is my desire to try and make the article a quality article, with appropriate citations. In order to remain NPOV, we need to fairly represent the perspectives (backed by appropriate citations, not just opinion) and not try to censor or omit any perspective. I haven't made any judgement about the balance of POV, and I'm not sure that offering one would offer clarity, or make the article better. I myself am circumsized, and have no problem with that. I recognize that prevailing medical opinion (in most places) is against circumcision as a general rule, unless there is some other medical necessity. However, many people feel that circumcision is appropriate. Some, like yourself, feel that parental decision in the matter is not appropriate, and it should be left to the individual. I have no opinion on that, other than existing cultures have current rules that they operate on, for better or worse. This article should not be a platform for changing cultural opinions on either perspective, but should present the facts as neutrally as possible, and let people decide for themselves how those facts affect them in their culture, with their mutiplicity of rules, mores and values. Atom 16:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the *article* should be NPOV, which is why i'm trying to get Jakew to stop censoring medical information he disagrees with. Lordkazan 16:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that if you add information to the article, and give a valid citation (per[REDACTED] policies) that I will back you up whetehr I agree with the information or not. My concerns are the quality of the article, and not a particular perspective. We should let both of you, and others with other perspectives, state those pespectives and back them up with facts. Atom 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lordkazan 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Semen

Stop reverting the semen picture on the couch. Removing a poor joke is not censorship. A more scientifc picture can be easily used. user:71.224.108.41

Please review the talk pages. This has been talked about many times. You will see in those pages that I am asking for a scientific photo of semen in a cup, along aide a microscope image of that. We have discussed and come to consensus that the existing photo is fine until we have a better one. It is just semen on a brown background, not something pornographic. Again, please read the talk pages before criticizing me for enforcing the policy that we have all agreed to.

Here is a few excerpts.

"I think we need a better photo. I think that having a dual photo of human semen in a petri dish on the left, and a microsopic picture (of semen, not just sperm) on the right would be a great lead picture. Atom 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)"

"Anonymous users keep removing the image, despite what appear to be consensus on the discussion page and[REDACTED] policy (Misplaced Pages is Not Censored). I've reluctant to readd the image because of the 3RR, so can an administrator step in and make the situation clear? --Darksun 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)"

See Consensus_on_images Vote was 5 votes for "keep both images" and none against.

"See consensus discussion above. linkimage is for images that are sexually explicit. This image is of semen, not people having intercourse. We are looking, waiting for a better photo, but this will do for now. Atom 02:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)"

So, if you disagree, please participate in the discussion, and offer a reasonable and rational argument, rather than reverting after many other people have come to a consensus on the issue. Atom 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop unblanking my user page

I blanked it because some jerk posted personal information on there. Now you get someone to wp:office that stuff out of my user page or I will sue Jimbo/Wikimedia/whoever.