Archive

• April 2006 through September 2006 • Archive 1
• September 2006 through January 2007 • Archive 2

I suspect that User:JULEBRYG is a Fleshlight meatpuppet so to speak. I've seen at least three specific cases before where the company have had supposedly neutral people market their product on various community websites in a similar fashion. Combine this with the fact that the user's only significant edits has been to this article and I think there's a strong case. Debolaz 16:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You must really like penis's or something. Usefull stuff though. JFBurton 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am firmly attached to my own penis. Other than that, I edit many, many sexuality articles, not just the one about the penis. What stuff did you find useful, and what stuff was not? Atom 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just usefull stuff, Someone has to write about it I suppose. JFBurton 21:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, he isnt the most famous member I dont think. But it said previously that his real name was Tim Burton. JFBurton 13:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be set to thumb, with no explicit PX set. Doing it this way will allow the user preferences to be used, instead of the picture being forced to a different size. Atom 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Does wikipedia have picture guidelines posted anywhere? --Jcbutler 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Atomaton!

I have now turned my one-line box into Template:Notcensored. Your longer box (suited to articles with images of nudity or sexual anatomy) I've adapted into Template:Notcensored2, with two minor changes from the original text: 1) removed the blank line from top, 2) used BASEPAGENAME to provide the article name automagically, so that doesn't have to be typed in every time.

It's probably better to "subst" these -- {{subst:notcensored}} or {{subst:notcensored2}} -- rather than make the poor computers transclude them each load. That also reduces the risk of being affected by template vandalism. -- Ben 11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems in your testing of the ejaculation pic, you reverted it back to the blacked out pic. You're the last one listed on the image history, so I can't think of anyone else who might have done it. I am sure it was inadvertent, but could you fix it, please? Jeffpw 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not me. An admin playing with things. After I got a complaint that the images was black'd, and verified that it was, I reverted back to the original image Trevor gave, as an attempt to fix after it was already "broken". That did not fix it. It turns out that every version was black'd at that point. Now the image has re-appeared by itself, and several edit histories are gone, including mine. Atom 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't reappear bu itself, I reverted it back to the last working image--I had no idea it was so easy. By the way, your two reverts do show up in the edit hiistory I see. In any event, I think an admin needs to protect the image as long as it is being used, to keep this from happening again. Nice to meet you, by the way. Jeffpw 15:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nice to meet you too!

Here are my reverts [1] Do you see that they are dated 15 Jan 2007 at 00:07, and today when I tried to fix shown as 17 Jan 2007 at 09:20. But the image history shows 17 January 2007 at 10:00 and at 10:01. No correlation. Also, the 15 January reversion I made was to Trevors image of 2006-09-06. This is the second time he edited it, when he added licensing. Now, that reversion is not even listed. Only the original time he edited the image on 2006-09-01 is listed. Atom 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My statement on the talk page Sexual Intercourse was not trolling. I am serious, I will photo me and my girlfriend having sex for the site. I wanted to ask permission first. Please respond on that page. 75.109.100.86 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it did look like trolling. I'm afraid that although in most places two 16 year olds having intercourse is legal, that in the U.S., where the Wikipedia servers are, pictures of that are not legal. Even if they were legal (as they are not) some would argue that until age 18 you can't give valid consent to others to use the image. If you should decide to download photos like that, it may cause someone to try and block your account. Also, another issue is that any graphic picture on the articles are always controversial because some people consider them to be pornography. Also, there is the issue as to what image, if any, improves the wuality of the article the best. Some believe that an art image or drawing is more tasteful, while providing the required information content. And finally, although it has been done, many people consider that images posed and downloaded by Wikipedia editors to be vanity images, and would probably object on that basis if both of you were older than 18, and both gave permission for the photo. So, thanks for offering in good faith, but unfortunately Wikipedia must decline. Atom 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to go here and weigh in on the discussion? Thanks --Appraiser 15:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Atomation

I am currently rather distressed at the protection (locking) of my userpage by the admin known as Guy. I wrote a piece of constructive criticism about wikipedia (incidentally about the Anal_stretching article that was WP:SALTed) and Guy removed it citing WP:SOAP (which refers to articles, not userpages) and so I restored it saying "that refers to encyclopedia articles, not userpages", and then he just re-removed it and locked my page, once again citing WP:SALT, even though it should be strongly noted that WP:USER strongly protects constructive criticism on userpages.

Anyways, I have spent a long time writing up a good overview of the case here (and that is where you can make comments after you have read it)
and I am seeking input from selected users who appeal to me as being constructive, level-headed, analytical, and reasonable (although it is possible that I am mistaken in some cases).

I know that the piece I've written is rather lengthy, so if you find you don't have the time to get involved in this, then I understand. I will be asking a few more people for their input.

I will award barnstars for constructive feedback on this issue -- if I am allowed to do that.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Rfwoolf 15:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Atomation. Note that another admin unprotected my userpage when I brought the same above request to him, but, he didn't even read that page I created, but he thought that my userpage shouldn't be censored like that (and didn't cite any wikipolicy).

So for now I am happier, and you no longer need to put any input on this matter.

However, if for some strange reason you do, I am still uncertain about whether or not Guy was abusing his admin privilages. So you may still like to read the page I created and give me back some feedback. That said, thanks anyways :)

Rfwoolf 07:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are entries missing from the archives at talk:Semen. December 3 is the last post before January, and there was a lot of discussion going on between then. Can you see what happened? Prometheus^-X303- 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What things are missing? December 3rd is when I archived it[2] --> Archive 1[3]. Archive 2 was on January 9th[4].

I don't have time now, but I can look at the detail later. What entries are missing? Are you looking in both archives for them? Atom 13:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've had a closer look and compared the history with the archives. I think they're all there, but since they were not all posted in sequential order, it's hard to find them. Prometheus^-X303- 14:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: [[Image:Semen2.jpg]] has apparently been deleted. However, I can't find any relevant discussion at the commons deletions request page or any warnings on the uploaders talk page. Do you know how I can find info as to why it was deleted? Prometheus^-X303- 10:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am looking into this. Please see Here and Here. Atom 15:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Good work. BTW, how did you track it down? Prometheus^-X303- 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Atomaton...I'm just getting familiar with wiki protocols. Can you provide me your justification for deleting the outside link to the account for a neotantric samadhi that I added. My opinion is that it provides a rare example of a supreme transcendence triggered by a sexual orgasm...a fundamental concept in neotantra and certainly pertinent to the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayagaia (talk • contribs) 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Sure, sorry to step on your toes. First, I am sure that you aware that posts by anon users always are a focus of attention on Wikipedia to prevent page valndalism. In your case, of course, it was a good faith attempt to add useful information to the article. Another Wikipedia thing is that External links are something editors are partiular about. If you read the WP:EL policy you will see what I mean. (note the active discussion pages). Generally an article should have few, or no externa; links. EL's are for very particular things. The information that you offered should be integrated into the body of the article, and cited arropriately, and not be given as an external link. If you could go one more step in you desire to improve Wikipedia, and the Neotranta article, that would certainly be a valuable addition. Atom 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

kind sir, if bukkake 'refers to many men and at least one woman', as you have suggested, why is there a mention of lesbian bukkake in the article? especially considering that googling for 'lesbian bukkake' produces less results than the search for 'gay bukkake'. moreover, you don't seem to realise the way language works. 'atom' is a word that originated in greece, yet you use it to describe things that stand in contradiction to it's original meaning. the word 'bukkake' has already spread worldwide and is widely used in various variants. you should really check the discussion page, edition history and sister articles on non-english wikis. you would do better to express your objections by contributing, rather than deleting. a short mention that the term is widely used incorrectly, or something to that effect, would suffice, if you can prove that the term is used incorrectly. I'm certain you will agree with my reasoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.219.231.37 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure that I use "atom" in contradiction to its original use, but that could be possible. As my name originated when I was in egypt years before the greek age as Akhenaten, I don't think so. As for lesbian bukkake, I agree that it is something that I did not like added to the article much. I should re-evaluate that as well. It is not uncommon for me to revert anon users who add or change some small piece of an article when it doesn't make sense. I don't think that makes me a deletionist yet. Your suggestion to look at some of the bukkake articles on other language wikipedias is a good one. As for proving that you are using the term incorrectly, of course, that ball is in your court, as a citation supporting the definition of Bukkake as for lesbians, or in the ontext of men on men, is your burden. Best to you! Atom 02:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah, right, I am to do the research and write it down diligently, and you are to simply click undo every time anyway. I look at all your reverts of this article in the past, and I am amazed. with the new year you seem to have suddenly changed your mind about this one. you had nothing against gay bukkake nine months ago, when you joined wikipedia, and now you've suddenly changed your mind about this, and expect reality to blindly follow. I have been contributing to this article when it first appeared, and to wikipedia years before you discovered it, and it pains me to see a well-rounded article castrated by overzealous neophytes. you have to remember that wikipedia is not yours alone. deletionism is censorship. try to mend, not to destroy. oh, and I've been many rulers and wisemen in my past incarnations. in fact, too many to mention on such limited space. regards. 83.27.26.187

Well, sorry to not meet your standards. I'm sure the quality of Wikipedia will be diminished because of my neophyte editing of the Bukkake article, and it will bring the whole project down — I'll just have to try harder. I think you are right, the inclusion of every concept, factual or not to every article should be allowed. Eventually every article will be about everything, given enough time. Here is hoping that you are less limited in your next incarnation. Atom 13:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

dear sir, I would not try to share my views on this matter with you, had I thought your intentions were impure. this is not a personal attack in any way, so please refrain from statements that are personally insulting. I find such talk unnecessary in this context. I am most certain you are trying your best to share as you see proper and to the best of your abilities. however, you should take into consideration that, in a certain way, every single edit contributes, or defers the progress of wikipedia, as a whole. anonymous IPs have the same right to contribute as registered wikipedians. the whole registration system is there mainly for the convenience of the contributors and there's a reason behind registration not being the prerequisiste for editing pages. taking the matter at hand into consideration, the existence of such phenomenons as 'gay' or 'lesbian bukkake' is most certainly factual, in contradiction to concepts such as: Abstract, Nothing, Idea, Immortality or Tautology, to name just a few. your spite seems odd to me, but that is an irrelevant matter. even if what you envision comes true - that every article will be about everything - it will be immensely more advantageous than the alternative. I truly hope that you will be able to look at this matter from a healthy perspective, and I hope all your days are blessed with happiness, or whatever tickles your fancy. 81.219.231.37

I may be speaking with you in the same "tongue in cheek" fashion that you are, but my intent is certainly not to insult. I have nothing against anon ip contribution, as I have seen the occasional exceptional contribution from such. However, as I do a large number of reverts, almost all of the due to anon IP valdalism of articles, I watch anon IP's more carefully (as many people do). It is your right not not register, and to contribute as you see best. My suggestion is that registering gives you another layer of anonymity, in a way, as tracking back the IP address is relatively easy. (How is the weather in Wroclaw this time of year? I hear that lower Silesia is quite beautiful. One of my wives is 3/4th polish, and she would love to visit someday.) As for "gay and lesbian bukkake" as I stated in the article, I have no doubts that some pornography is advertised as such, but that does not make it Bukkake, just because it is called that. To meet the Wikipedia standards of NPOV, I'm happy to have a section in the article on Pornography that says that variations based on Bukkake, and called "gay/lesbian Bukkake" are advertised. I'm a stickler for accuracy, forgive me, but Bukkake is Bukkake, and men giving another man a facial, is a facial. Atom 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

anonymity was never my intent in this case (I find the idea that I do not realize a possibity to use a simple whois or shazou or whatever pretty amusing. you have made my day a joyous one and I thank you for that.), and lower Silesia is rather pretty, but that has nothing to do with the point. from which region of Poland do your wife's ancestors come from? back to the point, I don't really see the need for creating a different section just for bukkake, but you are free to do as you please. however, you have still failed to provide any proof that bukkake is a gender-specific act. your remark, stating that 'you have no doubts that some pornography is advertised as such, but that does not make it Bukkake, just because it is called that' is blatantly false, you obviously have no idea of a way the language changes and evolves. it is not in my power, hovewer, to change your mind on this, or anyone's else, for that matter. I wouldn't want to, anyway. only the future will ultimately prove one of us wrong. it is of minor imortance right now, anyway, I really don't care THAT much about this particular article, I have simply stumbled upon it, like I do once in a few years and I find the idea of someone so fixated on some personal crusade idea slightly amusing. please express my deepest respect to all of your wives, and may all your days be filled with joy and self-improvement. bye bye.

What a superb suggestion. I'm impressed. :-) Jakew 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your comments on the CyberAnth topics in AN/I. I agree, that if CA instead prodded the regular editors on the talk page, he'd do better. He could even ask for a weekend clean-up project by the regular editors, posting on friday 'Hey, lots of unsourced stuff, please use theweekend to clean it up!" and then do a cleaning on sunday night if nothign was done. But as you have mentioned, he's not interested in communication. What I find especially frustrating is that he's almost obstructionist in his behaviors. He was brought to AN/I weeks back for a series of actions against a wide array of sexual behaviors. He made it quite clear he objected to offensive content on WP, and we referred to those policies addressing the issue. He still took umbrage, and I think it's his intent to bog down Wikipedia with wikilawyering behaviors. As I stated, his actions this weekend have the potential to alienate dozens of Good editors, and Good faith editors of slightly less skill, but equal zeal. Losing good editors is never good for WP. ThuranX 15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the comments of other editors, you were really way off with removing my images from so many pages and the RfC. You did, however, get me commendations and a Barnstar. I'm just curious: What birthed your ire, enough that you even complained about my improving pages such as Rockefeller Center and Sequin by moving or replacing very low quality photographs with far superior ones? Since we share the same politics and worldview, I am at a loss at trying to explain to myself your motivations. --DavidShankBone 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

David, I commented on the admin page. I'm unhappy with the way it was dealt with. I felt that your approach was self-promotion. I asked for clarification of that from others whom I trusted. I did not attempt to villify you or demonize you, I only asked if my opinion was correct. I had expected a view people to say yes, it is borderline but not too bad, or no it is not, or whatever.

In my opinion on the sequin page, the replacement of a small image that showed sequins very well, with an image that is huge, and has lots of unrelated detail, but most importantly, illustrates the topic less well, without discussing it, did not seem appropriate. Your opinion seems to be as you state above. Also, the image in the breast article is the one that brought my attention. It seemed to be a poor image for that particular article (not to say it might not be a good image for something else.) That article has alot of contention, and we are going through a negotiated process of discussing what images should be added, or removed, etc. For an image to be dropped in out of nowhere, in that particular article, was highly noticeable. In another article it might have made no difference. If you had read any of the talk page, you would have seen that. SO, this left me with the impression, and after reviwing your recent edits, a stronger impression, that you seem to drop alot of your opwn images into a variety of articles without really reading the talk page, or discussing it with the people who focus on that article much. Add to that the other things I have mentioned, of putting the banner on your page promoting your images, and the isertion of your user name in the title of the images and it gave me a concern. I started to address my concern, and then realizing that it was borderline, asked for others opinions. I did not, and had no intention of insulting you or attacking you. I merely asked other editors of the borderline nature seemed like self promotion to them or not. I pointed out there that you have offered a number of high-quality images of buildings where none existed previously. I think that is marvelous. I don't see how that has anything to do with my question about self-promotion though.

You and I, obviously share similar politics, and outlooks on a variety of topics. The last thing that people like us ought to do is fight amongst ourselves. We should spend our energy demonizing George Bush, and irresponsible spending on a war we should never have been involved in. I am rather upset at the way that other people responded to what was intended to be an honest question. No one actually addressed by question honestly or directly. Atom 16:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your last paragraph, but disagree with the first. Editors simply can't take the time to read every talk page when they are making a good-intentioned edit, or WP would be too much of a chore to edit. I once put a photo of Falun Gong meditators on the Falun Gong page and walked into a hornet's nest. I walked away, without my image there (although I put it on the Chinatown page). The point is, Wikipedia is meant to be relatively easy to edit--that's the whole point. People can't do "homework" when editing, they can only address contentious edits as they happen. The sequin issue is separate: my photograph shows a clearly better photograph of a sequin dress, and more appropriate, than an ass shot that shows gold discs (not necessarily sequins). --DavidShankBone 16:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We disagree there, you are right. Not offending other editors is more important than convenience. If you read the discussion on the breast article, and in the archives, you will see that changes in images on the article can be very controversial. When you inject an image into the middle of that, it is like trying to get between two people who are in the middle of a fight or argument. Just a cursory review of the talk page would reviewl that in many cases. Atom 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sorry you felt the discussion didn't go well on the RfC page (only marginally sorry, since they were in my defense by editors I've never spoken to before). But your edits came across as heavy-handed (and wrong) not only to me, but to independent editors, which should say something to you. --DavidShankBone 16:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course it was not your fault. I did not mean to come across heavy-handed. I reviewed my comments, and other than asking for an opinion, and trying to give reasons for my concerns, I don't see where I did anything offensive. I didn't call you names, I didn't ask for you to be blocked. I didn't try to characterize the extent of ALL of your participation on Wikipedia. Frankly, most editors don't even know about the ANI page, and don't participate. If I had thought that you would read it and be defensive, I would have been more delicate. What I expected is a couple of people just saying, "Well it could be self-promotion" or "No, I don't think it is over the line", and then I would leave a comment on your talk page. Atom 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll address it: If you feel that adding his name to the images is self-promotion, I don't agree. The name does not appear on the image itself, but only on the name of the image. David has stated he is not a professional photographer, but rather a law student (I think that part is correct, please correct me if I got that wrong). In any event, he is only taking credit for his contributions. I don't see that as promotion, and it doesn't bother me. And for what it's worth, I had never seen or heard of david before the discussion on ANI. Jeffpw 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I appreciate your response. At least someone has at least attempted to answer my question. The one factor of embedding the photopgrapher name in the image name is not conventional. I think you will agree with that. That one factor alone, I agree, is not in itself self-promotional. As I suggested, my concern was multi-factored.

• The user is obviously a photographer, and has a banner on the user page which says "SPRUCE UP YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE/ZINE, POWERPOINT, BLOG, ADVERTISING OR COMPANY NEWSLETTER WITH MY IMAGES, FREE FOR ALL!" You will have to agree, I think, that this is promotion. I don't suggest that it is blatant advertising, or that anyone is asking for a fee. Promotion, or self-promotion, does not need to be for profit in order to be promotional. I agree that it is by itself, relatively minor. Borderline perhaps?
• I noticed that many of the articles (in my opinion) that he had replaced an existing image with his own image. Little or no discussion of the replacement was made with editors working on that article first. Again, a minor thing. Sometimes replacing a fair-use image with a free image is a good thing. By itself, a minor thing.
• In other articles, the lede image was removed, and his image inserted. In many article I edit, the lede image to sue is always controversial. TO place ones own image as lede, over someone elses image, without discussion stands out. A discussion with editors about replacing the lede image with another image you found (someone elses) is a different thing, and even then, often controversial.
• The photographers name embedded into the image name. We discussed that before. When you mouse-over the image, the photographers name pops up. Relatively minor by itself.

Putting all of the factors together gave me a good faith concern that this was a form of subtle self promotion. Give away free images, attract people to your work. Sort of an loss-leader marketing approach. I felt it was self promotional, aand started to act. Then, I decided that it was borderline. (prompted primarily when I saw that he had added a few images of buildings to articles where there had been no image before. And the building photos were much better photography than the pictures of people. I went to ANI and asked for other opinions. I meant to gain opinions about boderline self-promotion, and how others felt about this possibile occurence. I did not attack the person, or villify all of their other edits. I merely asked a question about self-promotion, I think that based on the evidence, asking ofr others opinions abou that is fair and reasonable?

Again, thanks for commenting on my question.Atom 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You know that dream where you're trying to stop a bank robbery¹, but everyone keeps reminding you that you're not wearing pants? I'm not 100% clear how the ANI discussion on this went off the rails, but there is no problem with raising a concern at ANI. Some people think that the user talk page is a required first stop, but that's debateable. Anyway, as you were, hip-hip tut-tut and all. And if you ever again are looking for a sounding board, my talk page is pretty active but you won't (usually) get flamed for posting a question there. - brenneman 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Not suggesting that Shankbone's a bank robber, just an anology.

Aaron, thanks for offering to be a sounding board. I can't but help think I will get a better reception. I may take you up on that sometime. Atom 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're requesting an article to be deleted on a person who is a well-known actress and fashion designer? --DavidShankBone 17:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well known? Well, maybe we in the midwest are pretty sheltered from real culture, but I have never heard of her. If she is notable, then the article does not do her justice, and some references need to be added. Look, it isn't that big of a deal. I just try to question bios of people I have never heard of when the article doesn't seem to say anything important. It was just coincidental that I ran into this one. If you say that she is notable, I'll remove the prod tag. Atom 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is incumbent upon you to research notability if you are going to attempt to delete them. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Google and Wikipedia policies in these attempts before initiating them. There's no need to make this a regional thing. Fashion and entertainment figures tend to be known on the coasts. It has nothing to do with culture, but what you know about or don't know about. I have no desire to work on the Subkoff article. --DavidShankBone 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, if someone appears notable, we can put an AfD and discuss it there. I don't need to prove non-notablility to do so. When people respond to the AfD, they show why someone would be notable. Often a bio of a person will be put in here where they done (like we all have) a number of things. Writing a couple books, or participating in a couple of movies does not necessarily establish notability to Wikipedia thresholds. Note that in the case of Nikk Craft the article barely survived to different AfD's related to her notability. There are a number of photographers, and pornography actors who have not survived notabily AfD's. The article on Photographer Martin Perrault just lost a notability AfD. Even though it was demonstrated thathe had something like 20+ cover photos in various magazine, apparently he ws "not-notable".

Anyway, in this specific case, I don't care that much one way or the other about Tara Subkoff. I did pose some questions on the talk page though. I'm not sure that you can use the photo of her without permission. Atom 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the way you're editing, Atom, is that you create a lot of work by deleting things and then expecting others to prove the articles have merit, or the images, or the additions. It's very easy to sit back and expect others to do the work in educating you or proving themselves, otherwise you win by default. That's not a good way to move about on this site. If you are going to say "I've never heard of Tara Subkoff before - delete!" you'll get more enemies than friends on this site. But it come across as supercilious to delete/revert first, ask questions later. It's also against Wikipedia policy, which since you started editing my work, you haven't followed in most of your actions (which has been pointed out to you by other editors). Try being nicer, and having reasons for your edits besides, "I don't know." --DavidShankBone 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. Please do not put Tara Subkoff for Afd. She's obviously notable. Look at her list of films. Google her. Look her up on IMDb. You may not have heard of her (nor I, as a matter of fact) but she definitely meets WP:V, as well as the Google test. Jeffpw 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just suggested to you that I had no desire to pursue that. I a said that your word was good enough for me. Atom 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I edit a broad range of sexuality and sexology articles. In most cases, a large portion of the work is in discussing and coming to consensus with others. A small part is in looking out for low quality, unreferenced work and tryint to repair it, or in some cases, remove it. A large part of what I deal with in my area are vandalism edits by anon editors. In the case of Subkoff, we have both established that we both don't care that much about the article either way. Theere are a large number of stub articles, created by vanity, or by a fan, of people who are not notable. If they are notable, it becomes immediately apparent in an AfD vote. Obviously if an article has some depth, and shows some accomplishments of note, and citable detail, or if it is someone who we all have heard of, I'm not going to waste my time, or anyone elses by suggesting that they are not notable and call for an AfD. There are borderline cases, and those clarify in the process. If I were to ask the next twenty people I see if they have heard of Tara Subkoff, not one of them would be likely to recognize the name. The article has almost no detail on her (indicating a lack of interest in her, or a lack of information on her). That sounds borderline to me. Also, if you had any familiarity with my work on Wikipedia, I don't think you'd suggest that I don't follow wikipedia policy. But, you are entitled to your opinion. Could you give me a link to where I said "I don't know?". Best to you, David. Atom 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you revered Adultery to the last version you authored deleting my good faith edits to improve the article with explanation of talk. Would it be possible for us to discuss these things on Talk:Adultery before simply eradicating the work of others? I took note of your debate and kept the citations and information that was available on that page in a format that I felt was more consistent with the encyclopedic style of wikipedia. If you feel that is insufficient, I would love to talk to you about it and reach consensus, but I don't think reverting eachother will be constructive. -SocratesJedi | Talk 09:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not eradicate your version you reverted while I was in the process of integrating the two versions. I went back to the previous version I spent an hour and a half on last night, and was re-integrating aspects of your edits when you reverted.

What were you thinking in rewriting the article to essentially remove the multiple perspectives, focusing on one perspective? That was removing the neutral POV?. I am fine with a more encylopedic style, but you changed the very definition at the beginning from the conventual definition to the legal definition. The whole focus was, and is that adultery was a crime that for ages was a property crime, where the key element was sexual intercourse with a married woman. Only recently (past 30 years) has it been seen as equally applying to men and women. Because of other editors concerns, I shows three seperate state laws that interpreted adultery very differently. This three are, in some way, representative of the spectrum, and diversity between many jurisdictions. Didn't you think that completely changing the definition, tone, and meaning of the article, and removing a bulk of what I spent an hour and a half working on would step on toes? Rather than be upset, I merely reverted to my version, and started integrating your text into it, before you interrupted that. Atom 09:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I'm sure that you have tweaking that you would like to do to, please proceed. My main concern is to not lose that for most of history Adultery has been viewed non-symettrically, in that a man sleeping with a married woman was considered adultery (alhthough symmetric in the sense that both of them were considered to be aldulterers), but a a married man sleeping with a non-married woman was not considered to be adultery. A rewrite that says that any married person having sex outside their marriage is adultery is not historically correct, even if more modern legal jurisdictions in some places now read that way. That is a recent change in perspective. That's why I showed three very diffeent U.S. state laws. It would be good to show other perspectives as well.

Also, strictly speaking, the initial definition of consensual "extramarital" intercourse is not correct. First, two unmarried people are having consensual extramarital (outside of marriage) sex, but that is called fornication. Also, proof of intercourse was not necessary in some jurisdictions. Oral sex might be sufficient in some places. Atom 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This image has been nominated for deletion. Since you have commented on it before, you may wish to view the discussion on the talk page of the image, as well as its deletion nomination page. Jeffpw 10:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)