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)

Hi, how are you. I was born and raised in Champaign. and grew up on PLATO and CERL and thr U of I. It is a really great school. Also, my area of expertise is your area of study. I have relatives that live there, but I don't any longer.

Anyway, with this adultery fornicaiton thing. Please have an open mind. I am a feminist, and I would prefer if the law were fair, and if adultery *did* fit your definition everywhere. But, the simple fact is that it hasn't been viewed that way through most of history. And, there are still places where it is viewed that way, even if the trend has been for replacing laws to make them more fair in our lifetimes. I feel that emphasizing the way that it has been viewed, and is still viewed in many part of the world, and some parts of the U.S., that it reinforces that there is sitll work to do in giving women more freedom. Regardless of my view on that, trying to clear up the mis-conception that many people have that adultery is the same as infidelity is something worthwhile in the article.

Even if you don't see my perspective, it is important that we put alternative views (citeable) to give the article NPOV balance, and not push just one view. Especially on a subject like this where the definition of adultery is different in nearly every stat in the U.S., in every coutry, and in different regions of those other countries. Trying to enforce, in the intro/lede paragraph, that the one view you suggest is the only view, when, in fact it is a minority view, only, (perhaps) more predominant in the U.S. isn't really balanced NPOV.

Anyway, just wanted to connect with you sso that you knew that I don't have any animosity towarsd you, I just get tored of fixing the chanhes you keep making (Which I see as in good faith, but mistaken).

Wish I were there, we could argue over a couple of pieces of Garcia's. Regards, Atom 21:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I have no animosity either; I think we're just simply in dispute about a point of fact which is certainly how the wiki should be working anyway. I've opened up a bullet as a Request for Comments at WP:RFC to helpfully get more editors involved so that we can reach some sort of consensus.

Glad to hear from another U of I-area person too.

-SocratesJedi | Talk 22:04, 2 February 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)

You created a new section in User Talk:Michaelbluejay by editing the last section. This was a no-no as it told me on my Watchlist that you edited a section I was interested in. You can use the + tab at the top of the page to create a new section in talk pages (and some others like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)). Thanks! Yankees76 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. Atom 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've followed up on your suggestion to work up a reference to the kind of experience my account illustrates by adding an Analogous concepts element to the article. I also added an introductory paragraph that describes the core concept around which Neotantra is evolving and provides a more inclusive view of the subject than the overall tone of the article.

In a review of your suggestion that I work my account into the body of the article on Neotantra, and provide citation- I find that the episode is something that cannot be summerized or abriged or excerpted in that it's totality is it's credibility, uniqueness and relativity to the topic. Any synoposis would simply add to the fuzziness that is characteristic of the effort to define a concept as controversal, numinous and near-ineffable as Samadhi.

I realize you can't read all the copy you have to consider but appeal that you actually read my account, and perhaps get a consensus with your fellow editors...and then decide as to whether an external link to the full account at http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/mysticalexp.html would be a unique contribution.

On another issue regarding the Neotantra article.

I do not argue with criticism that Neotantra is fraught with both fraudulent and sincere purveyors of contrived ideologies and practices.

My issue is that Neotantra is also an expression of the integral spirituality movement and while its appropriate that under "Criticism", Dr Fergusen's critical view be presented- to direct readers interested in learning about Neotantra with an External Link to The Nath Society that only refers to Neotantra with the same criticism already made by Dr. Fergusen seems inconsistant with a neutral encyclopedic perspective. The Nath Society has an External Link in the Tantra article where it has relativity and so is already linked from the term Tantra in the Neotantra article.

Thanks for your input Mayagaia 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Atom: If you get a chance to check out the samadhi account and can give me an opinion whether you think an outside link on the Neotantra article would be relevant let me know with a comment here in your talk page - thanks Mayagaia 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'm trying to get over to the talk page as often as I can, because I've noticed that there continues to be an issue. Unfortunately, I don't have internet access from home, and I'm bearing down on exams and related assignments, which has limited my participation even more than usual. I did just take a quick look at the top of the page, and my (nonscholarly) interpretation is that what is now written looks pretty accurate, based on the references I discussed on the article's talk page. As I can, I'll continue to drop in and see how thngs are progressing. --Badger151 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, the stuff on Wikipedia is not important, the exams are. Good luck! Atom 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I'm going to have to ask that you be much more careful about the stuff that's upsetting Busterthedogg until such time as you and she have managed to settle things with the help of someone from the Advocacy Association or whatever it's called. I'm sorry, but angry disputes are to be avoided; the ideal version of the article would satisfy both you and her. DS 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I follow the thread of your thought. I don't think we have spoken before, not have you posted on the adultery article. Regarding the problems we've had with Buster, your kind of a day late on that as he/she seems to have gotten the message that NPOV requires both views, finally. I asked for him/her to please offer a version that included both, and we could work form there. I've suggested the issues that I am concerned about but have not heard anything further. I've been very patient, civil and honest. The difficulty, if you look carefully, has been with Busterthedogg. I've warned that user to not disrupt the article, per Wikipedia policies. I think a productive approach would be if someone other than myself suggested to him/her diplomatically that changing the running text of the article, and then when someone objects, or modifies it, reverting their changes is disruptive, and attempting to own the article. In my view, I have patiently tried a number of methods of communicating, and expressing the necessity for the article to be NPOV and contain both views. So, your focus should be on expressing to that user the best way to edit co-operatively. I dislike angry disputes also. Busterthedogg may be reacting in an angry fashion, but all I have done is try to communicate the necessity that the article be NPOV. Atom 04:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, we haven't spoken before, and I haven't been involved in that article (nor do I plan to be). The point is that Buster (who is a woman) got upset and asked that something be done about your Abusive Behavior (tm); however, I have ascertained that you were not being abusive in any way whatsoever, and that you are acting in good faith (well done). Even so, she did ask for an Advocate to get involved, and so is within her rights to ask that you and others refrain from editing the article until such time as the Advocate has helped hammer things out. I told her that you had done nothing worth being scolded for, that you were both acting in good faith but had an intense philosophical disagreement about the article, and that I would ask you to wait for an Advocate to get involved. She thanked me for my objective opinion, and I have made this request as promised. DS 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I haven't worked with members advocates before, but my impression is that it could take a long time before anyone gets time to respond. As Busterthedogg finally recently agreed to put both perspectives into the intro, that seems to be to indicate a good faith to eventually resolve the issue. Prior to that every action seemed to be to prevent that, and had eroded my initial assumption of good faith. This intro is still unsatisfactory, but I am willing to wait awhile longer and see if a members advocate responds. There is no urgency about the article, it will still be here later. Thanks again for your efforts. Atom 17:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there was a general consensus on the picture, and I think I had a valid reason for removing it. I've posted the reasons why on the talk page. So thanks for not really paying attention. Movietrailer 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I pay alot of attention. If you had read the talk page first in detail, you'd see there there is, in gact a consensus. Every few weeks someone who doesn't like the image comes along and drops in a complaint, then deletes the image, and then gets reverted. If you look at the history, you will see that those occasional reverts have been reverted back to the consensus by at least a dozen different editors. If you read the talk page, you'll see why those random drive-bys are ignored. Because they don't gain consensus for change with anyone else, their reasons aren't based on Wikipiedia policy, and they generally don't understand wikipedia policy. In fact it has been hased, and re-hashed so many times that people have grown tired of trying to explain it to every random person who removes the image. In this case, the image is a scientific image that illustrates well the nature of the topic. It is not obscene, nor pornographic, and is a free use image. After some discussion awhile back it was moved from the lede position in the article, to further down into the article. That was the most recent consensus that lastet without comlaints for some time. No one is anxious to re-open arguments all over again. I understand that you are trying to act in good faith. I am sure you felt you had a valid reason for removing it. When you got reverted, and then reverted again, and then again and again, that should have been a sign that there were other people editing the article who had a different view. Atom 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also a "general consensus" of people that want that image removed, so who's to know who's right in this situation? Movietrailer 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for removing the image. I've seen a number of people complain about it though. When asked, the reasons are things like "The image is yucky", "It looks like the statue of liberty" and such. None of those address substantive issues. We have discussed trying to find a different image for the article. If there were a better image available, then that might be possible. Until such an image appears, and it seems clear that it improves the quality of the article, it makes no sense to remove the existing image. It is an article about sperm, and that is what it is a picture of. Atom 16:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a third opinion on the discussion currently going on at missionary position over whether or not all of the language on the page should be gender neutral. --Strait 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that twice today you reverted information on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. The information you took out was from an academic journal and you replaced with what was there before. Its cited, but from a lesser source. I was wondering why? --Illuminato 04:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I did was verify the sources, and I took a partial quote and gave the full quote instead. Later I saw that someone had reverted a number of changes I had made, including the one described above, so I reverted it back. Perhaps you made a change in the interim that was lost (either from the person who removed all of my changes, or my revert back to the when I gave the full quote. If I missed something, my apologies. Atom 11:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think almost everyone would agree thats a positive effect, but I suppose you are right in that people can make their own judgments. I let that edit stand. However, I don't know how you can be sure that the quote "less sustained, often not monogamous and [have] lower levels of satisfaction" is simply an opinion, and not based on research. The man who said it is a child psychology professor, so I'm willing to bet he didn't just make it up out of nowhere. Also, of three clauses only one is about monogamy. The article isn't about the length of teenage sexual relationships either, but its relevant to the article, so I put it back in. Finally, it has been discussed before and agreed that you can not pigeon hole the experts cited into for and against positions. The issue is too complex for that. I removed your subsections. --Illuminato 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe we can find some middle ground. The christian abstinence based organizations have to go though dud -- what is that about anyway? The article is about healthy adolescent sexuality, not abstinence. Atom 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I restored the section about the outside groups before I read this. Will you leave any messages for me on my talk page in the future so I can be sure I see them? I didn't add the abstinence groups to the article, though I think only one is Christian based. Personally, I would be happy just to list a few see alsos, but you deleted them and said they should be incorporated into the article, so thats what I did. I left the two sections - for and against - in there because I don't want to get into an edit war over it, but I really don't think they are appropriate. For instance, Lynn Ponton is quoted in the against section. If you read her book, you will see that she isn't opposed to all teenagers having sex, she just thinks it should only happen under limited circumstances when both partners are sure they are ready, based on a number of criteria she lays out. I think it does a disservice to her to put her in a "perspectives against" section. The same is true for the others - including Judith Levine, I'm sure. In addition, some of the things in the against section are not against adolescent sexuality per se, just against casual sex. I really don't think the for and against sections belong.--Illuminato 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you re-named Homosexuality and religion to Religion and homosexuality. That's fine, but when you want to rename a page, please only do so by using the move function, not by cutting and pasting content. Only the "move" function preserves the page's history, which is required by the GFDL. If you can't move a page that way, then please request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves so an admin can do it for you. Also, when you move a page, please be sure to fix any double redirects, i.e. any redirects that pointed to the old title have to be changed so they point to the new title. Thanks! —Angr 06:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. I'm saying that, at present, this page is inactive and lacks sufficient community response to call it consensual. You cannot change those facts by simply saying "hey, I don't like those facts". You might want to try advertising the proposal and seeing if you can get feedback on it. >Radiant< 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

HI: I didn't mean to step on your toes. I'm not sure as to how user Strait may feel about it, but fir me, I feel it usually takes quite a long time for these things to find sufficient discussion and consensus. You are right that there has not been much discussion in the past month but two or three months from now, something will motivate a user or users to discuss further. By marking it as historical, it stifles debate. I think the debate has barely started and yet you seem to think that it should be closed. I hear your suggestion to advertise and get more feedback, and I think it is a good one.

• I've put back the {{proposed}} tag for now. This proposal does need more feedback before it can be considered consensual; good places for asking include WP:VP, WP:RFC and WP:CENT. >Radiant< 13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(I deleted my message because the issue was resolved.) APatcher 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) APatcher 10:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

why. 66.92.170.227 14:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note this was removed by another user. The question stands. 66.92.170.227 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Atom, I just would like to let ya know that I initiated an request for assistance with the translation of the text. See the discussion for more info. It would be great, if you could spread the news and try to find some more hands to make it happen. ;-) Kind Regards. Herzliche Grüße aus Bayern. ;-) --Nemissimo II 11:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted a comment on Village Pump about the ambiguous nature of user talk page usage policy. I'm of the opinion that user talk pages are a community resource, especially in the case of vandalism warnings. I'm planning to initiate discussion on the possibility of defining a policy on what is and what is not proper behavior when it comes to deleting vandalism warnings on one's own talk page. Let me know if you are interested in this debate and I'll let you know when it is open for discussion again. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the complexities of the definition(s) of adultery, it does seem best to avoid the problem in the Fornication article and just link to the article on Adultery to sort it all out. -- Cat Whisperer 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Looking at the current discussion, there appears to be strong opposition to inline display of the photograph by several users, and strong support for inline display by only one user. In any event, I see no need for inline display; if readers want to see the photograph, they can simply click on the link. Linkimaging the photograph simply means that readers who don't wish to view the photograph won't see it; examining the discussion on the talk page, there appear to be quite a few readers who have expressed this preference. John254 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change. I'm just against changing what has worked with little reason, and then saying that consensus has changed. I see no need for an inline display, when there is nothing wrong with the image. Why not linkimage all images on Wikipedia? You have a right to express your view. I hear you say that you prefer a linkimaged image. I feel that this is a minority position. A bulk of the users lurk in the background and say very little. A small minority of people who are easily offended are the vocal users in this case. The others have not been vocal because they have been satisifed with the image during consensus. Atom 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

• Apparently a breast image has been deleted from the source. Take a look at the before & after of missing picture from the breast article.
• If there is a good replacement, then I recommend adding it to the breast article. Consensus was not reached to remove from article. I think it was deleted by back door voting. Very tricky. Well... hope to see you around. --MotherAmy 02:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the discussion where it was removed. The key element seemed to be that there was no source given for the photo. That is, it was a copyrighted photo used without permission. The downloader had apparently downloaded a number of other copyrighted photographs, which brought attention to that one. Atom 12:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 'Atomaton'... Re the article Religious Views on Masturbation. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and added this reference to a well-known web-article on the subject (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4884.htm) at the end of the sentence All condemn the act if done in lust, to pornography, or if it becomes an addiction or an escape from intimacy. The afrticle is apposite to that particular comment: did you remove the reference? If not who did? I can't find a comment from whoever did it. Thanks for your help. Ron Cameron

Smith2006 removed the link, with this edit [6]. I'm not sure why he did, but if he hadn't then I probably would have. The article you referenced is not what wouyld be considered reliable or verifiable. It is just from a web site where someone gavce an opinion, not a researcher, or in a perr reviewd journal, or a magazine, etc. Atom 12:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page you asked me:

"As you have chosen to change the statement to say "A minority, including journalist Judith Levine" I suggest the same thing. Can you back that up with a citation please?"

I suggest you look at the article on Levine's book, Harmful to Minors, here on WP. It says: "Because of its controversial nature and content, it was nearly impossible for Levine to find a publisher — one prospective publisher even called it "radioactive."" In it she calls for, among other things, weakening kiddy porn laws. Her "radioactive" views are clearly not in the majority. --Illuminato 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

At the source that is given there, there is no research presented. Also, it does not even cite a single page of her book to back up the claims she is making. She is a journalist, not a doctor or psychologist, so I have less faith in what she says then what the other experts cited say. I'm not trying to delete it, but I don't think we should give her the same level of respect as someone who has dedicated their academic and professional careers to the issue. Anyway, the article says "according to" three other times, so I don't think it automatically implies that it is only her opinion. --Illuminato 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato you idiot. She's not for abolishing kiddy porn laws. READ THE BOOK. And she herself is not an expert. But her book is MADE UP OF expert views, well known studies, statistics, etc. And the reason she couldn't find a publisher except Minnesota press was because she's VERY left wing. (Like I am). The book is very left wing. Even to hardcore liberals perhaps.

Nateland 02:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--slady 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, I share your concerns about the state of the Adolescent sexuality and Adolescent sexuality in the United States articles. In fact, I feel strongly enough about the poor writing and blatant POV-pushing in are so problematic that most of the content should be deleted. It would be one thing if it was just POV-pushing, but the the entire Adolescent sexuality in the United States article and much of Adolescent sexuality as well is just a giant quotefarm. That's just glorified plagiarism, in my opionion. If you'd like to weigh in on this, go to Talk: Adolescent_sexuality: Merge proposal/state of article. – Iamcuriousblue 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you check the history of the article, you will see that what I deleted I tried to do as a compromise, rather than keep going back and forth. I kept the part at the top of the quote, but moved the stuff at the bottom of the quote. Knowing the importance of contraception isn't an effect, and I don't think it adds much relevant context to that quote. the stuff you added in really fits better in the contraception section. I am assuming you didn't see that it was an attempt at a compromise since you didnt mention it in the edit summary, so I am reverting it back. -Illuminato 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't perceive it as a compromise, that's true. I'm open to compromise, but the content should be the focus, not arbitrary arrangments. I respect that you feel that things related to contraception should go somewhere else. The issue for me is that the original context of the quote you provided was closely tied to contraception. The snippet you provide it more sterile than the original context. I caan understand how trying to present a more christian perspective or point of view would be disrupted by the broader context including contraception. But, unfortunately, that is the correct context, and that is why I think it should be there. Not to support a different POV, but to accurately reflect the POV (whatever it is) of the original source. Atom 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very disapointed that you are taking a stand to delete the linkimage template. I thought you understood how valuable it is in preserving a shaky consensus to compromise between outright image removal and showing shocking images? Without linkimage, there will be no way to avoid removal of images such as pictures of autofellatio. They will be completely removed from their articles. Pleae reconsider your opinion and support this valuable tool for compromise. Johntex\^talk 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to dissapoint you. At one time I thought that it could be useful for limited purposes. Since then I have seen it misused, and people who seem to have a desire to censor images try to push legitimate images towards Linkimage. I see your point regarding the autofellation image, but it is possible that without Linkimage, it will remain in the article rather than being censored. I'll give your request some thought, and re-read the other opinions on the matter. Atom 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for giving it more consideration. That is all I could expect or hope for. I think the fact that this template is being used on fewer than 10 articles is an indication that it is not abused widely, if at all. Thanks again for thinking it over. Johntex\^talk 04:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you've noticed the ongoing dispute between me and Illuminato on the article about Adolescent Sexuality. I've gotten hardly ANYTHING done in the last 3 months due to his endless reversions to my edits. Yet he adds more and more POV to the article every day.

I really don't know what to do. I've tried telling an admin. Yet one of his 'friends' counter reported me and put a civility warning on my talk page. (Which they put back on after I removed it, even though Illuminato removed a 3RR warning on his talk page and the user in question didn't complain).

He beats around the bush and uses umbrella talk to make his actions on this website seem acceptable. even though he's lied, been uncivil, censored, and done numerous other things which are maddening to someone simply trying to fix up an article that seems to stay crappy because of a few users crappy actions.

Identical copies of the article are in the main article on the United States Culture (maybe the main U.S. article even), on the AS in the U.S. as you well know. And it could be in even more articles.

I don't know. This guy is impossible. Some help in dealing with him would be nice. Desperately, Nateland 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, he 'cleaned up' the Adolescent Sexuality talk page by deleting half of the posts. (Including a post I made today)

See [7] and [8] (essentially suggesting that it's child pornography!); [9] (blanking what the TfD didn't delete); and you may want to watch for whatever comes next. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 11:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I left the following message with Illuminato. I'll post my reccomendation in the talk page. give about a week for discussion. And based on the discussion. BOOM!. Feel free to participate.

Illuminato, Admit it.

Those two articles ARE simply copied text. I left the adolescent sexuality in India article stay as is because it wasn't carbon copied text.

Remember, your actions are putting undue strain on the servers. I'll put it up for vote in the talk page. And Illuminato, I'm sorry but you'll probably outnumbered. And seeing as you are about the only one objecting it WILL probably go through. I'm simply asking you to put aside your views and think rationally. DOZENS of people have complained about and critisized your actions on wikipedia. Far more than mine.

Sincerely, Nateland 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Atomaton! I'm glad to see you as an user interested in BDSM, can you help me to create a userbox that indicate the user supports BDSM rights? Thanks! Wooyi 03:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will restore, but it may not be today since my daughters are home this weekend, and I don't want to take a chance on them seeing this image on my computer. jimfbleak 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption. You have a long-standing pattern of reversion, often drive-by, of contentious articles. You need to stop doing that, please. Discuss and achieve consensus before making changes. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Atomaton makes a compelling argument (below) against the block. This user was not previously warned. The blocking admin did not point to specific behavior to justify the block. The blocking admin is apparently offline. Request handled by: Johntex\talk 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First, there has been no warning. No admin, JzG or anyone else has suggested to me that my actions are disruptive. No user has complained to me on my talk page that I have been disruptive. Second, I believe that JzG took this action as a result of my defending the censorship on the ejaculation article. A cursory review of that article will show that the image that has been the long standing image on the article was removed, without prior discussion or consensus. I replaced the image. What's more is that explained in detail what the reasonsing was before this most recent action by JzG. Returning the image that has been the long standing image is not disuptive. Third, I believe this to be unreasonable and unfriendly action by JzG.

JzG, I respond to your description. You claim a long-standing pattern, if you would be so kind as to give examples of which article you are talking about I would be happy to defend myself. In the case of the ejaculation article, I have been an editor and participant in that article for some time with a number of long discussion on the talk page discussion the appropriate content, and blocking and defending the article from censorship. It could hardly be called "drive-by". Also, in this latest case, I clearly explained my actions to return the consensus image after it had been changed yet again. If you look at the history of the article, you will see that it has been there quite a long time, and the image I reverted has been there only a short time, and has been previously rejected as an alternative for a number of reasons.

As for contentious, obviously you mean the many people discussing the image in ejaculation are contentious. I challenge you to find one sentence where I have been contentious. I have been diligent in explaining myself politely and civilly in every case. I am open to discourse on this issue. I find your block with no warning or prior discussion offensive and uncivil. Atom 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• (cross post from User_talk:JzG) - Hello Guy. Atom seems to make some good points in his request for unblock. Could you please (a) carefully consider his request and (b) if you still think the block is valid, can you please provide more specifics as to what you view as the problem behavior? Thanks so much, Johntex\^talk 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have not participated in any of the controversies at issue, and have no intention of wading into that minefield. Were I to do so I likely would disagree with Atomaton on whether the images in issue should be posted. But what has impressed me is the calm and rational way in which Atomaton has handled these disputes; he has not engaged in personal attacks and when faced with impassioned language has not responded in kind. That is born out by the entries in his talk page above. Please take that into account. Kablammo 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that the opener of WP:AN#User:Atomaton and edit waring on Ejaculation has not complied with "As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed.". Therefore, please be aware of this No Doubt Inadvertent blindsiding. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to the large volume of opposition and little support for the section on adolescent sexuality in the main article on adolescence. Which has gone unchanged for months, i've removed the section and placed a link to the article adolescent sexuality at the top of the article.

The signature part of my explanation is below.

the main article on adolescent sexuality has been updated and thus the current section should be updated. The section itself seems irrelevant to the article on adolescents worldwide as a whole and I say it should be removed and a link at the top of the article saying 'for the article on adolescent sexuality see adolescent sexuality. There is strong opposition to the current and the exact same data has been literally copy & pasted into numerous other spin-off articles.

I'm removing this section. And I hope i'll get support when doing it.

Seeing as Illuminato will likely try and revert my change I ask for your support in stopping yet another potential edit war over a triviality and to counter revert if need be. Thank you.

P.S. due to the massive amount of spin-off article that were once created by Illuminato. With adolescent sexual behavior being the newest. I'm seeking to turn these into redirects to the main article as they were simply created to try and make ineffective compromises. These spin-offs include. adolescent sexuality in Britain adolescent sexuality in the united states adolescent sexuality in India and possibly other articles or as irrelevant sections in other articles that I haven't noticed yet. I think these spin-offs need to be made into redirects. And perhaps we should coordinate efforts to fix this mass of spin-offs of the same topic on a subset of a wikiproject page like wikiproject sexuality. Get more people involved. This overpour can't be good for wikipedia. Facewise or server bandwidth wise... Nateland 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:adolescent sexuality for information on the proposal. It would create a branch off article containing solely views on the subject and hopefully get rid of the POV currently in the articles which are supposed to say what adolescent sexuality is. Not is it good or bad. In my opinion I say let the POV wars take place in an article ABOUT POV. not elsewhere. Tell us what you think at the above link. Nateland 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)