Talk:Phone sex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Sex work task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
The original page is archived here, it was such a mess that it unsalvageable. You can try to make sense of it by looking through the history of the original talk page. Users are reminded that they ought to log in, sign their names with four tildes (~~~~), and try to structure their comments with paragraph indentations. Dunc|☺ 11:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] RfC
First, both of you need to get accounts and learn how to sign, because otherwise it's impossible to see who's saying what.
Second, stop reverting each other - where's that going to get you? Nowhere, except a ban if you do it often enough!
Finally, discuss your edits here. Make reference to our core content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Dan100 (Talk) 07:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Archiving of Peer Review request
The peer review request for this article has been archived as per the first bullet of Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy. Unfortunately Peer Review is not equipped to deal with content disputes. --Allen3 talk 11:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Start Over
This conversation, near as I can tell, had turned into a tiny war; basically, one user with a personal agenda against the community. I'd like to suggest, since user Dunc has archived the whole thing, that everyone involved start over -- first researching Wiki policies, and then working toward consensus.
For what it's worth, most of users in this conversation seemed to be doing just that, but it bears repeating for those who don't take time to learn and understand, what Wiki is and what Wiki is not. Karlelvis 19:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The removal of all links to businesses is essential. The Board or whoever needs to make sure that no ponographic links are created. Also, that folks not use this resource to enrich themselves. It's fun to follow the links from Dick Cheney to phone sex you never know where you'll go on Wiki. --verytall 19:41, 4 Jul 2005
Verytall, the problem with the logic of 'removing all links to businesses' is that businesses very, very often contain useful and objective information. Take a look at technical sites Apple.com, Microsoft.com, RedHat.com. All businesses, yet all sources of technical information - take a look at Wiki's page on MacOS X for an example.
So sites cannot, by policy, simply be ruled out because they may contain some commercial content. Content needs to be evaluated for relevance.
Now, the 'pornographic links' question is different. In this context (phone sex as a business), by definition, sexuality/eroticism are on topic and relevant. Any site, commercial or not, may have explicit sexual content. As an example, if we look at Wiki's page on The Kama Sutra, we'll find links to explicit words, pictures, etc.
So we can't in any way state that 'no pornographic links should be created' (I'm using 'pornography' as synonymous in this context with 'erotic' - we could debate the difference but this isn't the place for it) because on-topic, relevant and informative web sites may very well contain explicit sexual content.
Again, the bottom line is, links need to be evaluated for validity as an informational resource; not simply dis-allowed on policy for being 'commercial' or 'pornographic'.
--Karl Elvis 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
[edit] Damage control
Beginning in December of '04, I contributed many substantial edits to the phone sex article. In addition to those credited to my username, I'm also responsible for the edits attributed to 69.133.64.7 and 209.148.113.104. I was very disappointed to see the article devolve as a result of the edit war, which in turn seemed to begin when someone posted a large edit that was apparently based on original research (a patent violation of Wikipedia policy).
The article still contains a great deal of anecdotalism, speculative extrapolation, and other counterproductive vestiges of the edit war. I would like to see it develop into something objective and actually worthy of an encyclopedia, and I welcome the assistance of objective individuals with a sensitivity to the needs of comparative studies.
Given that, as of this writing, the archived Talk page simply reads "Not mature enough to allow you to have this page! Will keep deleting until you remove links from all commercial sites!", it seems the vandalism and vindictiveness continues. Would an admin please lock the archive after reverting the destruction? All I can say is that it would be truly unfortunate if this type of behavior ultimately resulted in a page lock on the article itself. Ringbang 01:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This is all related to search engine criteria !!!! the more link you have the better you are
[edit] phone sex
Is there a book about sex on the phone as therapy or plesure?
yes, here is one of the few articles i've found on phone sex as therapy and as pleasure which helped me to understand many of my own sexual issues, as well as my interest in phone sex:
http://www.drsusanblock.com/blog/article140.html
[edit] spam on this page
Recently a user named WildSusan has been spamming this article with phone numbers. Can't this user be banned or something?
Of course. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for the steps. Bustter 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please revert spam instead of editing
Reversion makes it easier to identify abuse. Also, please include an edit summary. rv spam link is usually sufficient. –edgarde 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] fone-me
Someone keeps linking to a commercial site , which I keep removing because I can't access the site at all. The font is so enormous at the bottom of the page that each letter nearly fills my screen, and I can't even manage to get access to the site. Does it do this for everyone else? --Xyzzyplugh 18:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] inappropriate links
Let's keep all such discussion under this header, ok?
We've got an anonymous user, 75.16.53.223, replacing his advertising-afiliate "topsites" link every time it's removed. I placed a warning on the appropriate user page, if it keeps up he needs blocking. Bustter 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think blocking one IP address will do it. The majority of spam inserts are coming from IP addresses with one-time edit histories. –edgarde 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] request for semi-protection
I believe this page would benefit from requiring login, and have requested semi-protection, which would disallow edits from anonymous users. –edgarde 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Declined. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection:
Your request for semiprotection for phone sex was declined, because there is not enough activity in that page to require semiprotection (which, by our Semiprotection Policy is a last resort). I've put that page on my watchlist, though, and I suggest that you do too. Thanks!
- –edgarde 21:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alexander Graham Bell
I have made a minor change to the article. I have removed Alexander Graham Bell's credit of creating the telephone due to the likelihood of Antonio Meucci creating the instrument prior to Bell's patent filing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robisbor (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 May 2007
[edit] More Susan Block spam
The Alexander Graham Bell reference is pointless pseudo history in this article — the entire section (now deleted[1]) was unsourced speculation inserted to link http://www.drsusanblock.com/ .
There actually is a recent history of commercial phone sex that would be worth including in this article, and Susan Block is as non-notable a player as practically any phone sex provider that could be mentioned. / edgarde 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
A bit more well sourced material certainly wouldn't hurt. --Simon Speed 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. If I had reliable sources handy, they would have been added by now. I think some US-specific documentation exists in magazine articles (I'm thinking maybe the New York Times mag, not porn), but finding these would be some work. Dunno what books have been written. A Google search on "phone sex history" might be a fun afternoon for someone, but not me. / edgarde 11:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Finding reliable sources on the current phone sex industry is extremely difficult. I've been working on a first-person phone sex memoir project for a few years now and the best information is rarely from a published or "reputable" citeable source. That said, there is a decent but dated book by Amy Flowers called "The Fantasy Factory," published in 1998. And I know it's of no practical use, but my personal experience and research have been in agreement with the article as it currently stands. --LylaZ 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images removed, again
I have removed the images (Image:CandlestickTelephones.jpg and Image:TelephoneHelloNellie.jpg) from this article twice now because they are not connected to it. Here's what the first image is described as:
- Man and woman using telephones, c. 1910
- Scanned from a period postcard. Reverse says "Printed in Saxony." No notice of publisher, date, or any copyright. Indistinct postmark appears to be 1911.
Caption: My word! You do tickle me.
The second:
- Man using telephone
- Scanned from a (cheaply printed) postcard, c. 1905-1915; no notice of publisher, date, or any copyright.
Caption: Hello Nellie, anything on for to night? [sic]
It's patently obvious that any attempt to imply that they have anything to do with phone sex is original research at best and outright fantasy at worst. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 09:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
