User:Atomaton/archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cuckold article

You made a revert that erased all of my changes on the Cuckold article. My changes were relatively minor, and were intended to reduce or eliminate the complaint that the article was racially biased. I also remove the "toyboy" term, which was used innacurately. (And the term is more commonly "Boytoy") but still should not have been used in that context anyway in order to be accurate. -- Atomaton

I will revert back to my edition after some period of time, or re-institute the meaningful changes if you don't want to respond to this and explain.

My assumption is that you are a good person who thinks, for some reason, that you are fixing vandalism to the page, as you are one of the people who monitors recent changes. Maybe sometimes you are overzealous about that? Thanks, -- Atomaton, April 2006.

Revert was Reverted by you, thanks. -- Atomaton

For the cuckold article... I think you need someone with more expertise in this area. The historical section looks good, but the Recent Usage section needs sources for much of what it discusses. Best, gwernol 14:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harem

Harem Article, complete rewrite, add pictures, add references. Atom 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polyamory quotations

There are two quotations that you've recently edited at Polyamory. As these are direct quotes, I don't understand why you feel their contents ought to be copy edited. Could you enlighten me? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you asked about the edits on Polyamory. Well, it is relatively minor, and we can revert if you think it is important. The first edit, it the point seemed to be in giving the definition of Polyamory, and it used a quote from the alt.polyamory FAQ. I felt that the important point here was to give the definition, and to rmain true to the quote, since it was a direct quote. So, I went to the source to check the quote, and quoted it. I didn't see how the "2). What's polyamory, then? - :(Glad you asked that. ;-) )" portion added to clarifying the definition at all. SO I tried to trim it to the essentials of the quote.

The second edit was pretty much the same thing, but was a little more complex. First in the quote from Morning Glory Zell Ravenheart on their page at "http://www.mithrilstar.org/Polyamory%20FAQ-Ravenhearts.htm" it was not stated in that order. Secondly, the portion about swingers is contrasting, and does not agree. In the quote on her page it said (which is quoted in the wii article "The two essential ingredients of the concept of “polyamory” are “more than one;” and “loving.” That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have a loving emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other. This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, “cheating,” serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as “mate-swapping” parties."

Essentially, it seemed to be saying that they did not consider the ending list of things that were merely casual recreational sex to be part of Polyamory. In my experience (I know ...anecdotal is of little value) our organization pretty much does not see eye to eye with swingers, and we have few to no swingers in our organization as they pretty much have different values." Regardless of my experience, the sentence that I cut, which talks about swinging, not about the articles point, Polyamory, " Since this section was about defining polyamory, I didn't see how the paragraph about swinging was really relavent. In fact since it seems to say that they think swingers may be polyamorous, it is confusing. I guess the deciding facot for me was that the paragraph did not seem to add to the whole in helping to paint a definition of how Polyamorous people defined themselves.

If this doesn't make sense to you, please feel free to revert, or edit to your liking.

Best Regards, Atom 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That does clarify it considerably! My concern was about the accuracy of the quotes, and I missed that you'd removed the "2). What's..." part as well as the "Glad you asked" bit. (An edit just previous had removed the "Glad you asked" bit without removing the other, and without indicating that there was a "missing" part to the quotation. I thought you'd done the same thing, but I was mistaken.)
For the second part, I'm not sure what you mean by it being not stated in that order on the site, since the order of paragraphs seems to match. However, I do notice that we've actually misrepresented the quote by attributing the paragraphs following the definition to Morning-Glory herself as well when the site is actually signed "The Ravenhearts". So, the following paragraph(s) ought to be separate anyway, which I'll do now. And I agree that the bit about swinging wasn't useful.
Thanks for the extensive clarification! — Saxifrage ✎ 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:BDSM-emblem.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:BDSM-emblem.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BDSM-emblem.gif

I moved discussion from my user page to discussion page of picture. I added rationale why the symbol can't be copyrighted. --Rtc 08:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rtc is correct. The image can't be copyrighted. Kajmal 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If your claim is correct, what's to stop me from claiming copyright on any random image on wikipedia and forcing them to take it down? This guy has NO legal right to copyright the image and NO copyright has even been filed in his name. He's a liar and an extortionist. I will change the color of the image and re-upload it. Kajmal 01:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human penis size reply

Sorry for the delay but I have finally managed to get around to answering your question on my talk page--Clawed 12:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BDSM

Actually if you want to rv my last change back [1], I don't mind - I was actually editing the anonymous's edit rather than yours, but you got in just before me :) Mdwh 11:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polyamory

The claim that "Polygyny has been an accepted alternative to monogamy by the major world religions throughout most of human history, until recent times" had a citeneeded tag sitting on it for a month before I removed it - if you'd like to re-add it, please include a cite that supports it. (Also, 'recent times' is a very fuzzy term; something more specific would be helpful.) --Calair 00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be obnoxious about reverting your stuff, but given that these claims have been removed before, they really shouldn't be re-added until you have the cite. I'm particularly concerned because that material disagrees with Clerical celibacy, Catholic Encyclopaedia, and just about every other source I can find on the matter. All of those indicate that the Church prohibited marriage for priests as early as about 300AD in some regions, and church-wide by the early 12th century (First & Second Lateran Councils), not the 16th (although there certainly were priests who ignored the edicts). The implication that priests were allowed multiple wives before then really needs support, given that 1 Timothy 3 Titus 1:6 both require a priest to be a 'man of one woman'. --Calair 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography article is sprawling and repetitive

First of all, the article is too long. To help remedy that, I made extensive edits yesterday to try to tighten up some of the writing and omit some non-encyclopedic content that read more like a sociology paper. I see you have you reverted everyone of my good-faith edits without explaining why. I also tried to improve the prose.

For example the following is an example of some re-writing I did:

In practice, pornography can be defined merely as erotica that is perceived as "obscene" (see obscenity). The definition of what one finds as obscene can differ among persons, cultures and eras. This leaves legal actions by those who oppose pornography open to wide interpretation.

You reverted it back to:

Pornography is often viewed as erotica that is "obscene". The definition of what one person finds as obscene can differ by person, and by timing. This leaves legal actions by those who oppose Pornography open to wide interpretation.

I'm not that posesseive of my edits, nor do I fancy myself an elite writer, but I did work hard to improve the clarity of the article. I'd like to know what you found wrong with the more concise wording. You even reverted obvious improvements; you inappropriately re-capitalized "Pornography," de-linked obscenity and re-inserted the clumsily and repititiously phrased "The definition of what one person finds as obscene can differ by person."

More importantly, you don't seem to be concerned that the article has ballooned to an ungodly length. Pschemp had the good sense to remove the detailed history out of the Pornography article and create separate article called History of erotic depictions. You reverted her edits, and deleted the reference to that separate article. The discusssion of erotic images from anqituity and prehistoric times has little to do with the modern conceit of pornography. It truly belongs in a separate article.

Additionally, you re-inserted rambling, tangential references to Gore Vidal and Colin Dyos into the "Terminology" article after I had trimmed a great deal of flab from that section. These references had little if anything to do with the terminology associated with "pornography" and served more as sociohistorical interpretations of why pornography came to be viewed as dangerous. These references are vaguely interesting, but they have nothing to do with "Terminology." Please be mindful of which section you are editing and whether the content is relevant to that particular section.

Worst of all, you reinserted the non-sequitur about religious objections to pornography into the introduction even though I moved that statement into a much more appropriate section. Now the same wording appears twice.

I could go on and on.... I'd like to know what you have against a more concise article

I clearly and specifically detailed the rationale for every one of my edits in the edit summary, you clumsily reverted every one of them. My edits are not gold, but there should be some sort of dialogue between, as it were, heavy editors. I'm trying to help the article evolve into something well-written, organized and readable--currently it is laughably repititious, meandering and chaotic. What possible objection could you have to this? Love, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I perhaps should not have been so shrill in my objections. I believe I simply took it personally that someone apparently found none of me copyedits useful. Now, I understand it wasn't intentional. Anyway, I already tried to rewrite some of the more repetitive bits, but, again, I do not consider my edits--nor anyone else's--infallible. For example, if you want to reinsert the Vidal and Dyos references, perhaps you can find a more sequentially logical place to put them.
I noticed, by the way, there's a lot of great and information in the History section. I just wish we could trim it down somehow.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

thanks again for how you handled that. --Nikkicraft 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

Hi, I notice you put a ref in the Pornography article that wasn't formatted properly. Please use the templates for refs, as shown here. That way all the refs in the article will be in a consistent format, but more importantly that's the current accepted format for refs all over the enclyclopedia. Anyway, keep up the good work on the article. pschemp | talk 13:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masturbation and commercial products

I noticed you edited out the links I inserted, to an existing Wiki page Fleshlight (not to a commercial product off-site, as you claim). Yet you let stand links and references to another commercial product, ona cups, which doesn't even have its own wiki page. If there's some logic here that escapes me, please explain? Why would links from the Masturbation page to an existing page about a male masturbation practice be unacceptable and deleted as "redundant references to commercial product", yet mention and links to another commercial product for the same purpose be allowed? If I was being fair, I'd either let both stand, or delete both, or at worst delete the references to ona cups, not to the Fleshlight wiki page?

I could just restore the Masturbation page to the way I'd like it to be and then we could engage in an extended edit battle, but instead I'm doing you the courtesy of discussing it first, to see if we can agree.

P.S. I noticed for some reason Wiki does not enter my user name. You can reach me via email at fleshjoe at fleshjoe no spam dot spam die com. user:209.233.24.218

[edit] Masturbation page

In the process of reverting other image changes, you seem to have lost my addition of a caption to the Klimt drawing. Was this intentional? If not, please restore it, if so, please let me know why. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-added. Sorry about that. I've wanted to fix that caption for awhile now. Should be better now. Atom 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The consensus reached in Talk:Masturbation through discussion seems to have been totally useless since anonymous users as well as user Future either insert images never discussed or delete what has been restored, notably Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg. The image itself has been deleted altogether from the data base by user JoshuaZ with the consequence that it is no longer visible in Talk:Masturbation and that the whole section of discussing the "New Image" there at Talk:Masturbation#The_New_Image has become utterly pointless. This is vandalism in a most irritating way. In the meantime, I have deleted all images in the controversial first section on the Masturbation page. CarlosLuis 2:25, 6 September 2006.

[edit] Sex

lol thanks hahha, that encouragement is kinda rare on wp, usually cold haha. but yeah this IS wp tho, so why dont you add some stuff, if you dont know how ill tell ya, or just suggest some catagories i should add to the sex template, ill add some more paraphilias and acts in for the time being, but ya know its not like those nice big expanisve templates are made in one edit, thanks for your concern Qrc2006 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

i did consult some people and sex was just too broad, and im spliting it into by each category it had. i actually did stop adding it i dont know which unrelevant articles i added it to, if you could tell me which ones, that would be great. how do u get something peer reviewed, ive tried before but was shop down with a THIS IS NOT PEER REVEIWED/REMOVED Qrc2006 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a link on your user page that has many common links on it. It has peer review on it, among other things. But you can check into peer review at Wikipedia:Peer_review. I think getting a template peer reviewed is unusual, but they would probably not mind. Just make sure that it is ready before you submit it though. Run it by a few of your wikipedia contacts before you peer review it, and make sure there are no red links, that it has consistent format and style. After it is peer reviewed, and you make suggested changes, try it out in a few articles first, and look for feedback. What brought you to my attention is that I edit all of the sexology and sexuality articles, and your template popped up all over the place in those articles. In some of them, there is alot of participation (masturbation, circumcision, pornography) and little changes get noticed by lots of people, and when someone comes along and adds something without checking with others first, it steps on toes. What I am saying is that you should be careful that the template content fits the article type first, and then ask before putting it in. Some articles aren't heavily watched, and no one will say anything, and some are heavily watched.

Here is my quick review:

  • I see that the {{sex}} template has cunnilingus spelled wrong. (in general, look at your work and always make sure there are no red links. You seem to misspell alot. I'm not critical, it is just a fact. That means using something like MS-Word as your editor and spell checking first could help. People notice that and make a bad judgement. Slow down a little and take more time on each change you make.)
  • "Sexual things" seems like a strange title. I would use something like "Sex items" or "Sex tools", maybe something better than that. That category needs more things on it. How about paddle, sex toy, (spanking)]], pervertible, flogger, Whip, cane, quirt, spreader bar, nipple clamp, collar, gag (BDSM), blindfold, bondage cuffs, or the category category:BDSM equipment instead. I know there is not room for everything (not that this list is everything.
  • For "sex acts" you don't have anal sex. (Intercourse, oral sex and anal sex are the top three in popularity). You could add BDSM, bondage, spanking, handjob, bukkake, group sex, Menage a trois, or pegging (sexual practice). See category category:sexual acts. You could link the header on the left (sex acts) to the category category:sexual acts.
  • "Sex positions" Well -- look at the list of sex positions article and category category:Sex positions. You could link the far left header to one of those two. In terms of popularity, behind missionary sex, there would be "Cowgirl", "Doggy Style", "Spoons Position", "Kneeling"and "Stand and carry". And let's not forget 69 sex position, "Circle Jerk" and "Orgy".
  • "Other" looks good. there are probably a few things that could be added to that. You could add another category, "BDSM", and put some of the BDSM related stuff there. BDSM is a term that has expanded to now mean, basically, "kinky sex". (anything non-conventional)

Atom 11:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

thank uou very much, its a work in progress and yeah thanks for the suggestions theyre very good and ill try and implement them, this template is a splitting up of the template :Sex to one on Template:Paraphilia and one on Template:STD/STI and this one's purpose was to put everything else togetherQrc2006 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female Dominance article

Question:

Why do you think http://www.femdomale.com/ is a commercial site? i think the site contains very valuable educational resources. user:75.28.108.48

Although there is useful information, the links on the side for commercial sites make it commercial. Atom 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the content of http://www.femdomale.com/ is non-commercial. the commercial links at the right hand are similar to google adsense. are those not allowed? By the way, the article at http://www.femdomale.com/female-domination.html should be a reference for the wikipedia article, because editors of that article borrowed content from http://www.femdomale.com/female-domination.html user:75.28.108.48

Thanks, put the link does not qualify. It is not what Wikipedia would consider a good source. What Wikipedia preferes are recognized sources, books, articles, research studies. Anyone interested in the subject can look up femdom on google. As for the source of the information, the article is in flux. It is poorly written, and even with a few minutes of copyediting on m part still needs alot of work. See the article dominatrix, professional dominant, and Dominant (BDSM) for similar information expressed better. I suspect this article (female dominance) will eventually be merged into one of those. Atom 23:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)