User talk:198

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'LL BE AWAY AT LEAST UNTIL THE 15TH JAN. 198

Image:Billoreilly.jpg
Who's looking out for you?


Stop vandalising wikipedia. Take your concerns to the talk page or I will be forced to block you from editing. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 23:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removing objectionable material is not vandalism. Placing objectionable material should be considered vandalism, romiving it should (first off) have been the action of an admin, and when the admins failed in their responsibility, it fell to the rest of us with a sense of appropriateness. KeyStroke 21:52, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
This is your last warning about removing that picture. →Raul654 23:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I've protected the article so that you cannot remove it. This has the advantage of allowing you to voice your opinions without being tempted to vandalise the article. However protection is very unwiki and so we don't protect pages for long. |Learn to respect the community views, and abide by them. Do not try the vandalise the article or I will block you from editing this site. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 23:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello "198", I am KeyStroke. I support you and your efforts to bring trustworthiness back to Wikipedia. I am glad that there is at least one person with a sense of appropriateness who is willing to take the risk you have and stand up to the amoral "group-think" mentality that has crept into Wikipedia, in general, and (appearantly) into the admins in particular.
Update. Reason has prevailed in at least one minor way. I was able to argue that it was inappropriate for Theresa Knott to both be the admin that put the page under protection, as well as arguing for one side of the dispute. This has resulted in her removing the protection. Now we can remove the offensive photograph. However, I am at work at the moment and do not want to risk bringing up a pornographic image on my computer (I could be fired for doing so). There is no way I know of to remove the image without first having it show up on my computer. So I cannot remove the image at this time. KeyStroke

Contents

[edit] Please learn the rules of the road

I see you are still having revert wars due to pictures you find offensive.

Sorry you find them offensive, but like any community, this one has rules and policies (indeed, these policies didn't show up overnight, and are the result of a lot of evolution) and as a member you have to respect them, or you will be asked to leave.

Please read over Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

You have an opinion, and we respect it. Really. But we are a collaborative community, one in which every opinion counts, and the group consensus disagrees with you. Please, discuss your issues on the talk page, but don't continue an attempt to force your views, as it won't be well received, and, as you've seen, your edits end up getting reverted anyways. Kaszeta 00:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kaszeta, the reason that the "group consensus" disagrees with the removal of the picture is because a lot of the individuals who edit Wikipedia, and more to the point the individuals who would seek out such a page as clitoris are males who are younger than the age of 30. This skews the profile and opinion. The admins need to be mroe responsible than the "group consensus" and safegaurd the trustworthiness of the whole site by making sure no suggestive or provocitive photos or text find their way onto the site. KeyStroke 21:52, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
Interesting point. If, indeed, the people accessing clitoris are males under 30, shouldn't we respect that (up to a point)? After all, perhaps they want to educate themselves about the (oft-elusive to the inexperienced male under 30) body part; not everyone is just looking up clitoris in a dictionary because they like pornography. Since it's talked about all the time in magazines, television, and popular culture in general, there is a real need for factual information, lest one form one's ideas about naughty parts from Sex and the City or Cosmopolitan magazine. To that end, I think a photograph is inherently much more informative than a drawing, whether or not it offends some sensibilities. Some of the diagrams suggested on the clitoris talk page are altogether scary, and don't convey the visual information that the article warrants.
About child filters: does the entire wikipedia become blocked when the clitoris photo is up, or just the clitoris article? If only the article is blocked, I don't see why that's a problem. If parents don't want their children to see vaginas, I don't see why they wouldn't object to articles about vaginas. I simply don't see the difference. If the entire wikipedia is blocked, that's a problem. However, I don't see why we should be forced to conform to flawed filtering software.
Nonetheless: would a link to the photo from the article be acceptable, KeyStroke, or 198, or to any of the others that come across this post? Timbo 19:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll take your above post from the bottom up. In my opinion, yes a link to a photograph would be acceptable, as long as the photograph doesn't reside under a Wikipedia domain. That why parents, teachers, clergy, librarians and others who want to protect children can do so without banning all of Wikipedia.
Regarding nanny-ware, it is my understanding that (at a minimum) the whole domain gets banned, meaning that you can't just ban a few articles, either all of Wikipedia gets banned, or none of it does. It may even be bigger than that, however. If the software operates off of IP addresses, it may not only ban all of Wikipedia, but all other websites that use the same first few numbers in the IP address.
We need to distinguish between those who are more likely to contribute to Wikipedia, and those who will derive the most value from reading the articles. Those who are contributing will (most likely) be over 20, those who will derive the most value from reading what is written are those under 18. My (wild haired) guess is that the age at which someone gets the most value out of Wikipedia would be about 15 or 16. So all the voting is skewed. No one who reads the articles, but does not contribute, gets any vote. More importantly, those parents who are not contributing (but who would see Wikipedia is highly valuable for their children to read) get any vote at all. If only the readers were voting, and not the writers (and for any reader under 18, if it was their parents that voted for them) then I am very confident you would see the voting skewed in the other direction. So we need to take a position of being trustworthy towards those who are not getting to vote. We need to be responsible for them.
There is no way for filtering software to know the content of an image. Filtering software relies on "reports" from users, and others, to know what web sites to filter. It is assumed that if Wikipedia will allow a pornographic image on one of its subordinate web pages, then a pornographic image could appear on any of its subordinate web pages. And that is an entirely accurate assumption. Therefore it is not the filtering software that is flawed. What is flawed is #1 the voting mechanism on Wikipedia and #2 the absence of a "moral code of ethics" from the owner. KeyStroke 21:08, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Filters will block wiki I did a test with net-nanny recently and wikipedia is blocked.--198 00:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Good job taking on Gzornenplatz on this article, who has been going after all the 9/11-related material in hopes of minimizing the event. There was a big to-do about this involving a lot of users a long time ago, and we wound up with the compromise of having "terrorist" in the article but not the title of the article (where it used to be). VeryVerily 00:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't really go for the weasely approach. The claim they were not terrorist is analogous to the claim that a plane never hit the Pentagon. VeryVerily 01:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia's political articles are packed with fiction. I just try to ignore it. VeryVerily 01:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. —No-One Jones (m) 18:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "terrorist"

That's a very good question. Thanks for contacting me. I, too, believe that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks. Prince Bandar, George Bush, and most of humanity agree. However some do not. You know the saying: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." "Terrorist" is a label, like "freedom fighter". In the interest of NPOV, it's important to be careful not to state opinions as facts, even if the opinions seem obviously true to you. For instance, the Nazi page doesn't say "Nazis are evil", since that's a (well-founded) opinion.

In the case of the term "terrorist", it's much more subtle. It isn't the same as calling someone "evil", but it's definitely a loaded term. The word has a strong subjective meaning (a bad person), but it doesn't have a widely accepted objective meaning. (Was Nixon a terrorist? He bombed civilians in Laos. Is Yassir Arafat a terrorist?) No one has come up with a definition for "terrorist" that even half of commentators accept as legitimate. That's why a NPOV encyclopedia should try to avoid using the loaded term. The article on Terrorism is very informative on this.

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended you. I'm not some wild-eyed Islamist who thinks the 9/11 attacks were somehow justified. I just want to wiki Wikipedia NPOV. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 01:17, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this reasoning is that you can't infer that just because there are disputed accusations of terrorism, that terrorism itself is a disputed category. For instance, just because some believe that "taxation is theft" does not mean "theft" is therefore a POV category, or merely an opinion. This is the same illegitimate reasoning used by Wik in his successful revert war to eliminate terrorist from the titles. 9/11 was a terrorist attack; it does not possess any of the ambiguities which other cases do. VeryVerily 01:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your theft example, but I disagree that the 9/11 attacks were unambiguously terrorist attacks. Here's why.

One definition of "terrorist attack" might be "an attack designed to instill fear in a population, to acheive a political objective." That's a perfectly reasonable definition. But there's no evidence of what al-Qaida's motivations were. Perhaps they didn't want to instill fear; perhaps it was an intentionally provocative attack. Maybe bin Laden wanted to goad the U.S. into counter-attacking, so that a jihad would result. If so, then the objective wasn't to instill fear, but to instill anger. So by the definition above, it wouldn't be terrorism.

Or someone else might say that terrorism requires that the targets be innocent civilians who are not taking part in the conflict. But the Pentagon attack wasn't against a non-military target. And some would say that the people in the WTC were passively taking part in the conflict (between the U.S. and the Muslim world) by passively contributing to the "American system". I think that's a cop-out, personally, but we can't state as a fact that the attacks were "terrorist" attacks if it can't be shown to be a fact. And since the word "terrorist" does not have a definition that most people agree on, it isn't factual, it's an opinion.

We can disagree on this, and that's fine. But the best way to deal with it is to take a straw poll and work towards consensus (instead of an edit war). – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 03:53, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Reuters, one of the two most trusted news agencies in the world, doesn't use the word "terrorism" to describe the 9/11 attacks either. They explain:

We lost six members of the Reuters family and offices that housed 550 others who thankfully survived. From the first moments after the attacks, Reuters staff around the world worked tirelessly to account for their colleagues, restore our information services to customers, and report the news. However, these efforts have been overshadowed by the controversy over the policy of our Editorial group to avoid using emotional terms such as "terrorist" in their news stories. This policy has served Reuters and, more importantly, our readers well by ensuring access to news as it occurs, wherever it occurs. As a global news organization reporting from 160 countries, Reuters mission is to provide accurate and impartial accounts of events so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts. . . Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly.

I couldn't have said it better myself. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:11, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

(Discussion moved to Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate)

[edit] Karl Marx

Why do you insist on calling it high school? Not all English-speaking countries refer to it as high school, so it's essentially POV to compare it only to to that. Secondary school is the international term for the equivalent of what is high school in the United States, and therefore is much more neutral. Sarge Baldy 03:10, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

And most non-Americans won't. And Americans that don't can't click the convenient link to see what secondary education is. Sarge Baldy 03:14, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. —No-One Jones (m) 05:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User Irate

Irate has called me far worse than "idiot", and on more than just a few comments. Your options are a) get used to abuse, or b) mediation or arbitration. Good luck. Jayjg 05:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And what were those things, or is this just another example of you blowing things up to hise your racism?--Jirate 11:59, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Well, yes, "racist" for a start. And "ignorant", "arrogant", [1] "snide little gob shite", "manipulative", "without any value", "spoilt brat", [2] "dishonest", [3] "dishonest and manipulative", [4] "unpleasant toerag", [5] "self-righteous prig", [6], etc. Or are those terms of endearment in Liverpool? Jayjg 17:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It can only be considered abuse if it's not true. You original message on this page, validates several of my complaints and you last message validates some more.--Jirate 18:16, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Actually it is considered abuse true or not. We don't allow personal attacks here on Wikipedia. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I thought Jayjg and I had called it quits several weeks ago,but obviously Jayjg hadn't..--Jirate 23:08, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
"Called it quits"? I've never called you a name, then or now. Jayjg 23:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Amongst other things you accused me over ignoring votes, which is far worse than calling names. Went round and marked articles I'd created for deletion, questioned my motivation etc etc. There are plenty of way of being unpleasant without using unpleasant words.--Jirate 23:23, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Evidence for these claims would be mildly interesting, though I doubt forthcoming. And the two articles you created that I marked for deletion were, in fact, either deleted or turned into re-directs, indicating that marking them that way was wise. Jayjg 00:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'I suspect that this user will interpret any votes that don't explicitly say "delete" as votes to keep the page. Jayjg 20:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)'--Jirate 00:57, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of "ignoring" votes, I said I suspected you would interpret any vote which didn't explicitly say "delete" as a vote to keep the page. There's a difference. Jayjg 04:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You shouldn't be saying such comments Irate.--198 22:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I thought Jayjg and I had called it quits several weeks ago,but obviously Jayjg hadn't..--Jirate 23:08, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Well I truly hope you do call it quits because unpleasentness is seriously bad for wikipedia. A good tip, which i try my best to follow, is to think of a newbie reading a talk page for the first time. If a comment is rude and likely to make them run a mile we shouldn't be saying it. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Theresa.--198 23:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A tip I intend to follow is to avaoid talk pages.

--Jirate 23:23, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend making controversial edits if you aren't willing to defend them in Talk: pages. Jayjg 00:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Micronation dispute tag

I notice you restored the dispute tag at micronation. My issue with this is that Gzornenplatz, having made a massive song-and-dance routine about 2 alleged points of dispute, has failed to produce even a single piece of supporting evidence in nearly 2 months to demonstrate how his points of contention can be considered to have a reasonable foundation in anything other than his POV. One can only logically assume from this that there is no such evidence (I knew that 7 weeks ago of course, but I permitted him plenty of time to come up with something anyway, as I stated in my talk page post of 19 September). Simply restating that there is a disagreement, as he did yesterday, is insufficient justification to retain a dispute tag. If it was any nutter could simply say they disagree with something in any article they dislike in order to manufacture and artifcially propagate a dispute without ever being committed to seeking a resolution. It is obviously Gzornenplatz's modus operandi to cause any articles he disagrees with to be forced into protection, or failing that, have them listed as being under dispute; this is clearly an example of that pattern of behaviour.--Gene_poole 04:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clitoris

Please refrain from adding a disclaimer to Clitoris all the time. There was a vote on the talk page of the article with a clear outcome; I'd like to respectfully request that you respect the community's decision, even if it does not match your own personal opinion. -- Schnee 21:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I notice you wrote you will continuously remove the picture from Clitoris. Did you really mean this? I'm considering removing the lock from the page and keep an eye on the page for continuous reverts. I'm telling you this to give you fair warning, if I unlock the page and I find you remove the image more than three times, I will put you on a 72 hour block. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Jimbo Wales Was Here!

Do you remember that time we chatted on IRC and you complained that Jimbo was too good to come discuss things with the common editors? And then I edited your page as a joke? Well, that vile Snowspinner is attempting to get me banned for harrassing you -- please set him straight at: evidence sub-page. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] For the last time, you are not welcome on my user talk page

This is the first — and last — time I will be speaking to you directly. You have appeared on my user talk page for the last time, you know that you are unwelcome there, and I have absolutely no interest in appearing on yours or engaging with any sort of discourse with you directly beyond the following warning: cease trolling my user talk page immediately or I will consider other channels. And most definitely do –not– answer this comment on my talk page. — Lest we forget! ;) Kitty 00:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

El_C 08:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can be very rude El_C, but I won't listen to you either!--198 00:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] clitoris

Hi 198. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "if informal, than it doesn't count." I'm not going to re-revert because I'm tired of it and I don't want to look too much like Johnny Revertmonger, but somebody else will probably take out the tag pretty quick. Are you unsatisfied with the notice at the top of the talk page? TIMBO (T A L K) 05:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

Kindly do not leave such an aggressive note on my talk page again. There is a consensus on the article's talk page that the paragraph about children is weak. If it were better written and better cited, I'd have no problem with it, but as it stands, it looks a bit silly. It was, I believe, originally inserted by an editor who never responds to any messages either on his talk page or on the article's talk page, and yet who keeps reinserting it when others remove it. Please go to that talk page and argue to keep it; or better still, if you want it to be there, rewrite it with better references. Either way, there is absolutely no need for threats. Aggression will only achieve the opposite of what you're seeking to achieve, unless of course you're actively seeking hostility, in which case you've been singularly successful. SlimVirgin 04:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autofellatio

Come on 198, can you in all honesty call a drawing a porn picture? TIMBO (T A L K) 03:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to think about this? Autofellatio is not a novel concept, and a child could draw the act himself if he were so inclined. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

Hi Mark, regarding the section on the effects of children, there appears to be a consensus on the talk page to remove it. If you have further objections to this, could you make them at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 20:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, I appreciate it. SlimVirgin 06:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive images

As it happens, I don't think you were entirely misguided over the clitoris picture, and you were somewhat bullied. Your views might not be in accord with the majority here (who tend towards a liberal view on expression), that doesn't mean that they should not be respected. Okay, it did all get a bit heated, but it's easy to feel that the only course open to a dissenter is to revert and battle over edits, when the dialogue has broken down.

I hope that a compromise over that page (and others that contain potentially offensive images too) is not impossible. Would you be willing to explore a compromise with those on the "other side" who are willing to talk about it? Yes, it's going to be impossible to have a Wikipedia that doesn't feature pictures that you find objectionable, but perhaps we could work for something that is at least somewhat acceptable for all who are willing not to be extreme about it? Then, once that compromise is found, those that insist on not accepting it are revealed for what they are.

Let me know what you think.Dr Zen 00:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You were one of the hardest core opponents of the clitoris picture, but what I'd like to know is, would you be interested in making a compromise? What if the image could be linked? Or if the page could be forked, so that those who wanted to see the picture could, but those who didn't could be spared it? Would you accept that sort of idea?

I'm not concerned about the arbitration process. It's entirely fraudulent. But what would be fantastic would be to get a group of editors from each side to discuss with mutual respect a compromise (or at least to explore whether one is possible) without the interjection from extremists who shout "we had a vote, you lost, we get to put what we like on the page", which has no place in a wiki. Find a compromise that people are happy with and then the hardliners are left on the outside. Do it for clitoris and we can do it for autofellatio, which I agree with you is the same battle, and for penis.

But it depends on the editors, of course, including you. Can you compromise? Or is it no picture or nothing for you? Dr Zen 05:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howdy this is KeyStroke - I rarely visit Wikipedia anymore as I consider it a 'moral wasteland' that has been made so by the overwhelming liberal viewpoint individuals who edit here. It appears, to me, that Wikipedia appeals to academia or to Linux-lovers (who would also be Microsoft-haters, and by inference, capitalism-haters). So I have gone back to using Encarta for most lookups and abandoned my plans for extensive editing here.
As such this is the case, I am really not interested in striving for a compromise with those who want to make an encyclopedia (which would have the most value for children) into a platform for amoral advocacy.
In other words, Wikipedia had their chance to convince me that they are reasonable and prudent when it came to articles with questionable moral content. They failed.
I now consider Wikipedia to be the playground of satanic forces. I rarely, if ever, edit anymore, and have even gotten out of the habit of looking here for articles. KeyStroke 23:13, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

[edit] Children section

Hi Mark, just to let you know that I removed the children section from September 11, 2001 attacks. Thank you for agreeing to that. I have a question: you seemed to have strong feelings about the issue to begin with, and I was wondering if you could say a bit more about why you felt strongly that the section should remain. Don't elaborate if you don't want to, but I'm genuinely interested in seeing your point of view. Best, SlimVirgin 00:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive photos

Hello, I don't think the photos like Oral sex should be removed altogether, but I do question the way they're currently presented. Did you notice the other two photos uploaded by the same (presumed sockpuppet) user at the same time? See Woman on top sex position and Group sex.

Also, do be mindful of the three revert rule (although I'm sure you're well aware of it). Really, significant content changes should be discussed on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 10:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "porn" pictures and kids

Hi.

Though there is some controversy on the matter of what might be offensive or not offensive to kids depending on cultures, there is generally a consensus that Wikipedia 1) is first of all for adult and 2) that editors should not censor themselves the content, upon the reason it might offend someone. I know this is very tough, but ultimately, if *we* allow editors to censor the content, some might censor porn, others will censor violence, other will censor women speech, then others religious articles, or political articles. There is no limit to what our weakness could make us censor. I use the word weakness, not to offend you, but to make you realise that *any* of us is shocked one day or another by what is in the encyclopedia. For you, it might be a clitoris picture, for others it will be a severed head, for me it was extrem pov on political matters, for others it will be something else. We have all something that makes us react strongly one day. But even though it happens, we must try to resist it, because we try to work for information to be available.

If you want to work in a more constructive way, ie, in a way to make Wikipedia, a resource available to every one, I urge you to take another direction. Some suggestions :

  • some of us work to make some wikireaders for kids 8-12. You might join, why not to make a kid wikireader on sexual education that might fit the average american approach of it ?
  • some of us think of making a wikikids, an encyclopedia edited by and for kids 8-18.
  • some of us try to think of a categorizing system which might allow parents to choose to display or not display sex/violence etc... Ie, give all information, and make it possible that people make their own informed decision on what they want their kids to know but do not impose on the whole word wikipedia position on the matter.

What do you think ?

Anthere (Proud mom of 2 kids, 7 and 8, and expecting another one).

[edit] Reverting Autofellatio

As I mentioned on Talk:Autofellatio, I understand that you're disgusted with the drawing but you're clearly in the minority here. Please stop reverting it, as you may be blocked for a violation of the three revert rule. I hate to fall back on policy, but I don't think many people will go along with your suggestion of linking the drawing. I think it's an excessive amount of restraint - it's just a drawing. Rhobite 05:11, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. Jimbo removed the photograph but I don't think he did anything to the drawing. I understand your concerns about children, but Wikipedia cannot restrict itself in order to appease certain parents. We have pictures of torture, dead people, and yes, sexuality. Kids learn about sex at some point. Personally I'd rather if my kids had their questions answered by a neutrally-written encyclopedia than if their questions went unanswered. Rhobite 05:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I would ask you to reconsider leaving. You may be in a minority, and may be forced to compromise, but as soon as majorities are driving minorities away in frustration, Wikipedia has failed. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also ask you not to leave over this matter. I suggest you take a wikivacation, and when you come back, remove this article and others that cause you stress from your watchlist. There are areas of Wikipedia that I've never got involved with because I know they'd cause me stress.-gadfium 08:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Words of wisdom. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi 198.

Hello Anthere, I saw your message on my talk page. Now I'll be the 1st to confess I was overreacting on the Clitoris article (as a matter of fact I used to LOVE looking at playboy when I was in 'Nam, and still do once and while to this day) However, I personally think as a strong Christian that there's certain age when you should be exposed to those sort of things.

I also agree 198. But the fact kids should only be exposed to such pictures at a certain age does not mean every one should not have the option to see them. I also think it is a matter of education to provide to the kids, and of tools to develop to avoid them seeing the pictures. This is why I am favorable to us developing a tool which might help parents put filters on such articles. Then, it will people choice to make these available or not available. If we remove the pictures ourselves, we impose our pov to readers. And if we just put them with a link, we do not avoid kids seeing it. They know better than not clicking on a juicy link.

As a matter of fact I discovered wikipedia because of my younger daughter Jen shown this site to me (she's under 18, and I don't want her to see picture like the one on Autofellatio). Now I understand you're French (I seen you're Bio page), you have very different cultural values than we Americans, however, in this country it's Illegal to show pornographic pictures to minors. Now I'm not making a legal threat (I’m no lawyer either but I was reading about it). However, if a parent sees that Autofellatio picture (or even the drawing possibly), your website my have some problems with the US Department of Justice.

Nod. But I might dare saying that our project is NOT american, but a world wide construction. So, it must fit with all cultures. I agree with you that the database servers are hosted in the USA though, but this is essentially for two reasons : first the foundator is american, so he hosted the initial server where it appeared logical. Second, the USA are claimed to be amongst the more liberal and respectful countries on Earth. Now, if the US government ever has the strange idea to make our site illegal due to a few offending pictures, I promise I will suggest JImbo that the db servers are moved to France :-) I fear he will choke to death, as he considers my country one plagued by censorship (this point is a major point of contention between the two of us :-)). But, well, in short, I am confident the US Department of Justice would not shut down a site like ours on such motives. If so, we might host censored topics in another country :-)

I'd love the idea of children's wikipedia, so long as it doesn't touch controversial topics such as Autofellatio. (Now I might be blocked for breaking the three-revert rule, for attempting the link the drawing). Thank you Anthere (or Florence which ever you prefer)--198 05:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think if we were doing a kid wikipedia, there would be no chance such a picture is on it.
I understand you are very upset to be in minority here 198, and I agree minorities should be listened to. I also think some of the strongest defendants of the images are doing so for the principle, rather than for the quality of the image, or the information on it. I also think that some of what you fight for (such as linking of drawings) as very little chance to occur, while fights for removal of some images have more chance. I think that you would have more chance to be listened to if you focused on the most important fights to you, and let aside the least offensive points. Also, there is more chance you gather followers in avoiding to fight for lost issues. At least as a first step....I am also not sure refusing rules to fight for your view point is the best choice. I already saw a user:number very similar to you lost such a fight (168...) over principles. There is little chance to reach a consensus this way. If I dare say as well, accept the fact youngers who did not go to Vietnam, or younger crazy french women with different cultures think differently, which do not mean either that you are wrong or that they are wrong. Just different :-)
Well, Wikipedia is a very tough world sometimes. It is potentially very exhausting. But we *need* all povs. And we certainly do not want minorities to give up. Please, have a break, and consider coming back for those who asked you to do this, just above. Do not forget to look at flowers growing. Cheers. user:Anthere.

Anthere is right. We really need your POV. Point of fact, I think editors with your views are already under-represented on Wikipedia. At any rate, would you be willing to accept a compromise to link the image on Oral sex? I'd really appreciate it if you speak up on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 23:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Thanks for your note, Mark. I'm sorry to hear about your friend, and I can certainly understand now why you have strong feelings about it. Best, SlimVirgin 03:42, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] autofellatio drawing

It seems a little silly to me to quibble over the drawing. Go ahead and move it down if you feel so strongly, I guess. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This edit summary is not really good faith. Why not try to get others to agree with you via the talk page? TIMBO (T A L K) 07:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] welcome

glad to hear it. WP needs your input, I think. Just remember to take a break whenever you feel stressed: it's only the internet. dab (ᛏ) 14:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha order

Hi 198! I've replied at Talk:Jerusalem. In short, I think the alpha order is unencyclopedic because to be consistent, almost all the disputed places will have to be changed into Arabic first (except where Amharic is first), without regards to history. Regards. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding. Unfortunately I just realized I'm out of my 3 reverts. Earlier I had a rule not to engage in edit wars, but that didn't work. Sigh... Thanks, colleague! ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure a reasonable compromise can be reached on talk. There isn't that much in dispute, after all, just a simple matter of wording. Everyking 06:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Masturbation

Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 21:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, Mark!

For supporting my RfA. It was great seeing you voting for me, considering our past dispute (not to mention the rudeness of my cat towards you in your attempt to gain membership for OiHA!). Also, I want to reiterate that I found your apology a few months before to have been greatly to your credit. Really, a while ago I would have thought it virtually impossible to be speaking to you, let alone praising you. Yet, here we are. And it gives me great pleasure to do so. Many thanks, and all the best to you, El_C 00:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vyacheslav Molotov

  1. Reverting edits with nothing more than "rv lol you've GOT to be kidding me :)" or "rv mel's edits" is not acceptable, especially when your reversion turns NPoV into PoV language.
  2. Reverting when someone else has edited in between, thus deleting all their changes (in this case, extensive changes to the inter-Wiki information) is even more unacceptable, not to mention very bad manners.

If you want to discuss this, do so on Talk:Vyacheslav Molotov. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate you being reasonable, colleague. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


"I don't compromise with Communists"

Perhaps you don't, but let's take a look at your country:

  1. Compromised with Al Qaeda by pulling out of Saudi Arabia? Check
  2. Reagan flees Lebanon after the attack on the Marine barracks? Check
  3. How about Vietnam? Hmm, Image:Vietnamescape.jpg - Check


"A capitalist would sell you the rope to hang him with" -- Lenin

Or as Cde. Khrushchev once said - "we will bury you" - Ruy Lopez 04:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)