User talk:Lotusduck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Fart fetishism 2 Fungus edits 3 Fungal diversity 4 Moving articles on afd 5 Re : list of fictional people known by one name 6 Ped. Advocacy 7 Pedophile activism 8 Re-add Tag 9 Aquaphilia 10 I believe this is yours 11 I agree 12 Lolicon image discussion 13 Furry lifestyler AFD 14 Fury of the Furries 15 Unbirth 16 WikiProject Soil 17 Sarah Prentice 18 WP:A 19 Gas mask 20 Lincoln 21 redirect to stripper 22 WP:A , & fetishes, continued 23 Fetish craze 24 Deletion of material lacking citations 25 You are the winner 26 AfD nomination of Sneezing fetishism 27 AfD nomination of Amaurophilia

[edit] Fart fetishism

While I can understand your surprise, there's evidence that James Joyce did have some degree of interest in flatulence from a sexual perspective. So I'm returning the sentence you removed; you may wish to have a look at this: http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/bodily-functions/farting/

Rotten.com is a joke site. Lotusduck 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fungus edits

I liked your edits to the fungus article, but I made a few changes to make it more readable (IMO). I also added some links. I like the idea of putting the economic and ecological importance up front and moving the phylogeny to a different section. I'm trying to make the article conform more closely to the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science to make it more readable. See the talk page for details. I think the phylogeny section could be moved to a subheading in the Overview section. What do you think? Do you have any other ideas for changes? This article needs a whole lot of work. Feel free to comment in the Fungus talk or my talk. Mycota 21:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fungal diversity

Perhaps we can talk about fungal diversity in the Phylogeny section. I'm not sure that we'll have enough to warrant an entirely new section. Of course, if there is enough, we could always add a new section. We could talk about how many described species are in each division and how many species are estimated to exist. Then we can discuss the problems of finding and classifying new species and why some groups of fungi are under-represented. Mycota 19:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving articles on afd

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle instead of moving the afd discussion? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. —Cryptic (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay, sorry about that Lotusduck 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re : list of fictional people known by one name

Hi Lotusduck,

The closing had an irregularity, so I had re-opened it. Another sysop should re-count the debate and be re-closing it shortly. Thanks for your patience!

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ped. Advocacy

I think the "Childlove" article is kind of absurd in it's current form. I think that nothing short of makeing a special project of it is going to do any good. I'm interested, as I have an interest is in psychology, but I don't know if I have the stomach to dedicate a lot of effort to this kind of material. I'd like to see it be more informative and readable though, because, even though there's not a lot of reference material out there, I think one of Wikipedia's strong points is that it has more information on some things than anywhere else on the Internet. I've written articles on fossils and such patched together from numerous single sentence sources.

Anyway, I can be long-winded. I'm just poking around for ideas, because I think that information is important to everyone, especially parents. Calls I've seen for banning Wikipedia because of that article...it's absurd. I think people need that info and I think Wikipedia benefits from being able to provide quality, hopefully-balanced viewpoint articles on subjects that are so littered with emotion. Sorry to keep your ear so long; just LMK if you have any thoughts and thanks for your time. If ya don't, that's ok too. --DanielCD 21:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a "special project" is possible. I was actually hoping you would have some ideas, cause I'm all out. I'm trying to just stay away from it now, but I keep getting curious and go back to peek.

I just thought I'd poke you a bit to see what you thought, as you seem like a very reasonable person. I really think you will prove a valuable addition to Wikipedia; we need more people like you who can be level-headed over controversial things. Thanks for your time. --DanielCD 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lotusduck. Hey I was just down at the Childlove Pedophilia advocacy AfD... sheesh... that one's gonna be kept. Anyway, somehow that led me here. I have serious problems with that article. Compare to say Holocaust denial -- man Pedophilia advocacy is a lot more subject-friendly. I think it needs some work, but by an organized group... do you agree? Herostratus 06:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree, especially since the article isn't clearly defined, so it's sprawling and indirect with its' content. That's about the nicest thing I can say about this article. There's a lot of stuff that is not proven notable, like whether pedophile blogs are a notable effort or the same as any other random semi-political blog and insignificant. With the heading "Medical communities reactions to the movement" which I had earlier said is pejorative and is more accurately "The movements reaction to scientific journal reports" as far as time line, I think that this article is better compared to Pro-anorexia than holocaust denail, in that it has some sensational and understandably negative press, a large online community and a set of beleifs tied to that community based in selectively quoting medical reports, as well as attempting to refute them. Lotusduck 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE...Hi Lotusduck, I haven't forgotten about the Pedophila advocacy article (and perhaps a couple other articles) project. I will set it up if no one beats me to it, but probably not 'til next week. I have to do some actual editing work before I go nuts! Anyway, I think I will invite all the people who voted on the AfD and also some mental health bigwigs if I can scare any up, perhaps to offer perspectives on the Rind et al. (1998) study which seems to be quite important. But I'm looking forward to working with you if you're still available and interested. Don't worry if you can't do it. I'll be in touch. Cheers,Herostratus 10:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophile activism

What is going on with this article? I saw that the name changed again, its been protected, is tagged NPOV disputed, etc. Is it coming into shape, or what? I've created a project structure, here: User:Herostratus/Pedophilia. Would this still be useful, or what? Thx Herostratus 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. I'm just going to keep it in my private userspace for now. The live article remains as it is, the only formal place for changes and discussion etc. However one other editor, Silent War, will be engaging in discussion at User:Herostratus/Pedophilia, I guess. Anyway don't worry about it, carry on, thank you for all your help and good editing and all! Herostratus 09:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-add Tag

About the the tag in Balloon fetishism article, did you read the sources? The first source explain all that is writen int he article, including pratice, scene, background and the psychoanalysis vision. --Rick Browser 20:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For future people who might write on my talk page, only published outside sources can be used as references. Less authoratative sites can be used as external links, which are not the same as references. If something is a reference with a link, it is listed in references instead of external links. Often when people add things to external links instead of references it is because people know what they are doing. Thanks. Lotusduck 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquaphilia

I have to ask why you keep fiddling with this page. I'm doing my best between juggling a job, a family and a life to improve this page, and provide the cites you are asking for, yet you keep blanking. I'm sorry, but that to me looks awfully like Wikipedia:vandalism. We are trying to improve the wiki by adding information and links demonstrating the existence of this activity - why not leave the page alone and only delete things that are clearly not complying with policy. Tramlink 22:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have pretty much no idea what you're talking about. Blanking? The page isn't blanked. I edit the page, sometimes. This is the first complaint I've heard from you about my edits, but you make it sound like it's the fiftieth. Lotusduck 03:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Lotusduck, now you're dissembling. You have made 13 edits to the page in question in 14 days. Your own user page declares your hatred for fake Paraphilia. But we're not cliaming that Aquaphilia is a paraphilia, merely that it's a term vften used by adherants to a water fetish, which has been docuemnted and used for over 10 years. It's clear that you know nothing about the subject - why are you destroying the work of others that do? I beleive you are no longer acting in good faith. Tramlink 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed one link, once. My edits to the page have been adding the verify tag after people took it away. The requirement for reliable sources makes it unneccessary to be an expert in any subject. I declare no hatred for anything- you are the one that is drawing a connection between my work with paraphilias and this page. But to the point, aquaphilia as described on that page is not a sexual fetish for an object or a type of person, as is the definition of sexual fetish. It is probably better defined as a sexual fantasy. Once again, having deleted one link recently is not grounds for being accused of vandalism, and it is a violation of guidelines to not assume good faith, so best if you cut that out.Lotusduck 19:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only a violation to not assume good faith until there is evidence to support the opposing position. The fact you admit to knowing nothing about the subject but will continue to edit other more knowledgeable contributions demonstrates lack of good faith. As to it not being a fetish... whats Water, if it's not an object? Tramlink 21:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling me not knowlegeable is not cool. Water is not the subject of the fantasy, it's the location. I have said that I am not an expert. Wikipedia does not require experts. You have just argued that I am a vandal because I edit, and I don't know as much as you or anyone else. Can we just have a normal conversation please? Familiarize yourself with guidelines, pleaseLotusduck 21:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This may have been the first complaint, but it is not the last.

• "I do have the time to look for sources but I don't have the sources. The article is original research..."[1] How can one conclude that an article contains original research without being familiar with the non-original research?
• "this looks like original research.[2]" If the one adding the tag had actually read the references and other published material, he or she would have known whether or not the research was original, and wouldn't need to go on "looks."
• ""by citation needed I mean this is weasel worded"[3] These are the words of one who was either forced to concede that he had not done the homework necessary to judge the article, did not understand wikipedia tags well enough to write what he meant, or was simply editing a large number of pages to have edited a large number of pages [4].

Perhaps it is time to stop worrying about being "cool," and take the time to learn about the subjects that you are editing. Expertise might not be required, but knowledge is. Editing without knowledge merely broadcasts ignorance.BitterGrey 13:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I believe this is yours

Editor Dragon695 gave this to me out of the blue, I'm not sure why, except I suppose he saw on my user page that I had created a project for pedophila... but that wasn't real article work, as you have done. So, I erase this my from my space and award it over to you.

Aww, shucks. Lotusduck 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

But I'm no soil scientist, so I can't write about hydrophobic soils off the top of my head. Cheers, Daniel Collins 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Lolicon image discussion

Even more discussion over how/if/what images should be presented. Just telling anyone that is mentioned a few times on the talk page about it to see if they care to chime in. kotepho 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furry lifestyler AFD

Hey, I noticed you put an AFD notice on the Furry Lifestyler article, nominating it for deletion. You have to do more steps than that tho, see WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. --Conti|✉ 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, just noticed you created the AFD page. :) --Conti|✉ 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fury of the Furries

From User talk:Perri Rhoades:

...I think I am fast becoming an enemy of some fans that think that verifiability via published sources shouldn't apply to furries... Lotusduck 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And rightly so! They never understood us, not even when we stood fursuited in front of them with our big, lovable eyes and mimed to them. Their words were like poison in our cute, fluffy ears; so we turned our back on the world, shunning the harsh light of day for the secret forests of the night and select conventions.

But the time for talk has passed. You have conquered the elemental forces of earth, air and water, but now you face the fiery Fury of the Furries. Soon you will understand how the Burned Furs got their name. We shall not rest until you are but a pawprint on history. –—GreenReaper 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbirth

Posting once on a page a suggestion to move, after a discussion already determined a 'Keep, rather than merge', and then merging after 2 days simply makes you a vigilante. I can see why you get (deservedly) a bad reputation. Tialla 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Soil

I am pretty sure this project will interest you. Your pedological and edaphological knowledge is needed. Cheers! -- Paleorthid 07:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Prentice

Hi I'm the sarah prentice that used to sing in La honda. I am afraid its not my real name though! My real name is Sarah JOyce. I chose Prentice.. Thats rubbish isn't it?

````

[edit] WP:A

You sent me a note about this. Speaking generally, original thought or research that has been published on the internet should be treated exactly as original thought that has been published on paper: it must come from a reliable source. There are paper sources both reliable and unreliable; there are internet sources both reliable and unreliable. The unreliable sources are considered unreliable because they have a greater tendency to be untrue. For any particular source and fact, the reliability must be determined, and reliability is relative--there are different degrees. Things which are exceptionally unlikely to be true, such as UFOs, need exceptionally reliable sources. Things very likely to be true, such as peoples stated dates of birth and degrees received, can be taken from self-published internet sources that have some official character. Things visible to the direct inspection of everyone, such as the contents of a book or a web site, can be taken from the book or the site directly. Opinions of people or organizations --as distinct from factual information--can be take from any source known to reliably express their views, and self-published sources are reliable in this particular context. Some moderated mailing lists and blogs are reliable--it depends on the authority of the moderator. Some published books are not--it depends on the reputation of the publisher, and the otherwise known reliability of the author. Some self-published books or web postings are reliable, depending on the otherwise known reliability of the author. Something thought to be reliable can be shown not to be by independent sources, and something dubious can be confirmed by independent sources.In judging these things, we make use of our combined collective background of experiences and varied specialized knowledge, our individual common sense, and the increased wisdom of a consensus.

I do not know which article or edit you have in mind, but I think it is aquaphilia, and I will reply to the specifics on the AfD page for that article. I see from your comments there that you do talk about common sense, so we may well agree.

But I have just seen your general essay on paraphilias on your user page, and it is more likely that for this particular article we will not. Primary literary or other media sources are sufficient to document a name for a type of behavior,and to document that this behavior is something which people either do or fantasize about. They by themsselves justify an article if the behavior is worth the description. DGG 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gas mask

You're right, my mistake. Sorry -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln

We shall discuss the inclusion of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln in the See also section of Abraham Lincoln in the appropriate talk page. Lotusduck 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okie, dokie. --Tom 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:V, it depends upon the number of independent sources. If it is as you say, that there are multiple historical authorities who support this theory, then I will retract my objections. However, if there is only one authority who is subsequently repeated in popular media, the subsequent sources do not classify as independent. I will review the source article more closely. Until then, I will refrain from editing "See also." Best regards, Djma12 <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] redirect to stripper

i disagree with your call. you redirected a sexual fetish to stripping? that doesnt make sense to me. as far as i can tell, this is a sexual practice that falls under Sexual_humiliation. unless you have other information, im going to redirect. the_undertow <sup>talk</sup> 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

at first i was all about keeping the page, but you reminded me that just because it exists, it doesnt belong here. i have to quash the philosophy major in me. the_undertow <sup>talk</sup> 04:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:A , & fetishes, continued

I apologize, but it is impossible not to recognize names & remember prior AfDs, and anyway you talk about it on your user page. I do intend to try to keep every potentially keepable sexuality related article, & so we will inevitably come in conflict, as I think you intend to delete a good many more. I do not accept your argument about keeping only what we think to be the major ones. I'd even keep the fictional ones, if there were two or more films or stories about it. To continue, the reason people at AfD don't do the documentation is that it's work. Even on subjects where the bibliographic tools work, it takes about an hour to really upgrade and document a bio, longer for a subject, and I can't do more than one of those every other day or so. In human sexuality articles of the non-medical sort it takes much longer, because these things tend not to be in indexes. I've done one or two--it took all day. I cannot take responsibility for upgrading that whole section: I think others should share the dirty work. (pun intended).

For what its worth, you'll see me saying the same about web-related documentation in general. Enough blogs make notability, and I know you disagree here too. I intend to try to keep at it, patiently and I hope politely, till the consensus changes or WP becomes obsolete. I wish our apparent biases were close enough to work together more. DGG 04:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, and also the prevalent one, but not the only one. I do not think we will convince each other about the correct interpretation, because I think there is no single correct interpretation. You think WP will best develop done one way, and I think another. Fair enough. I intend to keep trying slowly and gently but in various places for a change in interpretation. I do not consider straightforward description from primary fictional sources OR, although I know many people do (to use your example, to see if the DD were popular enough for an article, I think this can be shown as well by blogs as by magazines. I think even advertisements are evidence, used very carefully.) Some agree with me, most don't yet. I think the interpretation may change. I hope I am patient, persistent, but not obsessive. I can accept being in the minority--sometimes things change, and sometimes they don't--- I don't get angry or even upset when I lose. I expect to convince sometimes, but not always. It may take a while. I wouldn't try if I knew there was no chance, but I think the interpretation will move to a more liberal interpretation.

As for what's policy, Jimbo has just reverted the unified WP:ATT, so everything will be up for discussion yet again. Policy too changes, sometimes. I think the people who were merging to ATT were trying to move too fast, and that's why they failed.

Accept that we'll disagree; we will each make the most persuasive arguments we can, modified by previous discussions. People who disagree are not necessarily opponents in any personal sense. Can you accept that? As we are likely to disagree a good deal, it would be helpful if we agreed not to fight about it. If you think I,m really out of line sometimes, says so; I will do the same. Quietly. My email is enabled, by the way, if you prefer. DGG 05:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fetish craze

I just wanted to tell you how happy I am to have found another editor the is just as annoyed with the current state of the fetish and philia artilces as I am. For awhile I felt like I was losing my mind but the fact that you have the exact same issues with them as I do is rather validating. I hope that we can work together in the future to help improve these areas with some tough love. I'm so sick of seeing everyone on the internet with a special interest prono "community" come to wikipedia and try to advetise their "fetishes" as conditions or "documented" medical, psychological or sociological phenomenons. Makes me fucking nuts. Hit me up if you don't mind having to endure complaints of cabalistic conspiracy, prejudice, fanatitism, persecution and sockpuppetry. NeoFreak 22:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Check out my list (at the bottom) for a collection of articles that I'm keeping an eye on now. I'm trying to make a "Garment fetishism" article work for now (and condense about a dozen different OR stubs in one swoop). Tell me what you think. NeoFreak 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of material lacking citations

Hi, I've noticed you're deleting a lot of material that's tagged as needing citations, or otherwise lacks attributions. While this is fine for material that seems incorrect or suspicious, it's not so good for material that is uncontroversial and easily attributable. I'll quote WP:A:

"Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution."

I and other editors use the {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} tags on uncontroversial material, to mean "please provide a citation", not "please delete"! A constructive edit would involve finding a reference and/or doing some rewriting, not removing the section.

The disappearance of the Eclectic Wicca article I'm rather concerned about; it was a poorly-written article in need of a lot of work, but an article on that subject is probably needed to avoid conflict in the Wicca article... Please, if you aren't familiar enough with a subject to know whether a statement is uncontroversial, don't take the gung-ho approach and delete. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But will you be doing this "re-writing with references", or are you leaving that to others? The regular editors on these articles generally have a plan of attack (if limited time in which to execute that plan), and are not queasy about chopping and rewriting large quantities of information when the time comes.

I would actually like to see you contributing to the Eclectic Wicca subject. I suspect for some reason that you have some good things to contribute here. I may come across as gruff, especially being a "traditional" Wiccan, but I have plenty of respect for eclectic Wiccans (those who take it seriously), and consider it a positive and totally valid expression of witchcraft; my only annoyance is that by using the same name as us they are effectively misrepresenting what we understand as Wicca, being a heirarchical, highly disciplined secret society with very specific ways of working, and a strong emphasis on training and personal development through initiation. As an analogy, if you admired Masonic ritual and symbolism and decided to incorporate these into your life and your spiritual practice, would you then call yourself a Freemason?

Of course truth is more important than personal interests and biases, and I would like to see all paths presented fairly. I think the Eclectic Wicca article is useful and I would like to see it improved to represent Eclectic Wiccans in the best light. If I find the time to restore it, with some added references and/or re-wordings, would you consider helping to improve it?

(Sorry for the rant, I just have a feeling it might mean something to you) Fuzzypeg☻ 06:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are the winner

		The Fat Man Award
		This award neither implies that the recipient is fat nor a man. Instead it stands to commend that rare breed of editor that realizes that sometimes the best way to get business done is just nuking to problem. NeoFreak 04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rashly criticizing the the work of others as unsupported, even though some of the articles had dozens of references (a two-day sample: 17 refs [5], 20 refs[6], 66 refs[7], 28 refs[8], 14 refs[9], 12 refs [10], 23 refs[11], 24 refs[12], 24 refs[13]) while apparently failing to add even a single reference with his own contributions[14][15][16] are not the actions of a winner. There are many words to describe people like this, and "winner" is not one of them. If this behavior is permitted to continue, then no one will be the winner. Wikipedia will be the loser. I think those of this "rare breed" should first learn to lead by example. BitterGrey 05:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sniffle? NeoFreak 08:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Sneezing fetishism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sneezing fetishism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sneezing fetishism. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Amaurophilia

An editor has nominated Amaurophilia, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amaurophilia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)