User talk:Simonxag/Archive 1

Thanks for the barnstar. Though I enjoyed creating images for wikipedia, I didn't particularly enjoy the debates. My editing philosophy differs too greatly from the average wikipedian. I don't believe in deletion, I only believe in addition or replacement. If you have more to add, then add it. If you have something better, then replace it. Don't just hack and slash delete, because you don't like it. Anyway, thanks again for the barnstar. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simonxag. You can see my justification (generally, that there are no reliable sources for the removed ones) here: User talk:Wolfkeeper. By the way, the only sourced entry had Everything2 as a source. --dicttrshp (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that edit was hardly controversial, as only one of the removed claims was sourced, and the source was Everything2, a freely editable site. --dicttrshp (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. As a relatively new user, I wasn't informed of this "revert reflex". --dicttrshp (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While cruising around Wiki I ran across the rather disappointing article on erogenous zones. For a subject that is literally one of the cornerstones of human sexuality, this article is rather light and chalk full of omissions, incompleteness, and inaccuracies. I am planning a significant re-write of this article. As a one of the more active and mentally mature members of the Sexology Project, are there any recommendations you'd like to make before I begin? Thanks --SeedFeeder (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please revert this, you likely meant well but this is discussed on the talkpage and at WP:ANI. The content is OR and poorly sourced. -- Banjeboi 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I haven't edited any pages, I've just been researching for my history assignment...118.208.127.111 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note explaining about creating an account at the anon talk page... edit was in Jan, warning in August, editor was confused by this, it seems. - Sinneed (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOOPS. I see that I looked at the WRONG DATE when responding. The warning was in Jan, and explanation already made in August, and I just confused myself. *blush* Thank you Simon for your courteous response. - Sinneed (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this suppose to mean? Don't speak out of the side of your mouth, if you have something to say, say it instead of trying to poison the well with snide insinuations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an apparent conflict of interest. Is this addressed and dealt with? No. Instead 2 articles are nominated for deletion. Apparently there is no connection between these nominations. One of the nominators is a sock puppet. At this point I have a strong tendency to talk out of the side of my mouth, at this point I think something funny, strange or just plain wrong is going on. A notable sex educator and public health activist gets well written up in the press (and that's a rarity in itself!), the sources are quoted in the article and the article is nominated for deletion because all of the sources are trivial mentions of her activities.

Now, I think there's almost certainly an editor who hasn't declared a COI here, which is naughty but NPOV is enforced by multiple editors and proper sourcing: you have been doing some of this - good. I don't know what else is happening, but something is and I don't like it. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the obsession of 24.22.141.252 with Benjiboi, isn't it likely this is Peter Damien once again? Fences&Windows 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the anonymous person is not the newbie they pretend to be (maybe Peter Damien, maybe a bad hand account of somebody who has a good hand account also). Cameron Scott seemed to think I was making insinuations about them, but all I'm saying is that there's something strange and wrong happening. --Simon Speed (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a witch-hunt, whipped up by the nutters over at Wikipedia Review. Fences&Windows 01:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to investigate a bit. I had a brief look at Wikipedia Review once before and gave it a miss: absolutely not a forum for building anything useful or creative; theres even a thread dedicated to libeling David Shankbone because he's been identified as someone who does useful work for the encyclopedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one of them - a banned editor - called me an "asshole" over there, presumably for arguing that the AfD Peter Damian's sock opened should be closed as he's a banned editor. Charming. Fences&Windows 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and was actually surprised how civilized and sane it had become since my last fleeting glimpse. The "Benjiboi" thread only seems to contain 1 piece of gross homophobia and 1 suggestion for meatpuppetry in a whole ocean of posts - all slagging off Benjiboi - except for one which slagged off Shankbone (old traditions die hard). I think something has been organized but I don't think it was there. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simonxag. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello, Simonxag. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Why did you revert my edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groping&action=historysubmit&diff=321948931&oldid=321887679

and why did you state rvv in the edit summary?

The edit was clearly not vandalism, infact I stated in my edit summary that I was removing uncited original research.

Please don't revert me in the future, when I am clearly removing uncited opinions, also please do not use an edit summary that suggests that I am vandalising wikipedia, when it was an obvious good faith edit.

thanks

119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion were not about censorship of any sort. I'm happy to see information about Cannabis. Did your see my comment on it? I didn't think a "Cannabis portal" were related to the "Health and fitness" section, because the Cannabis sativa plant has many properties not related to health at all. Actually the medicinal properties of Cannabis is a very small part of the whole cannabis subject. If you'd create en Medicinal cannabis-portal and link from the "Health and fitness" section I would've thought it was appropriate. --Dehugs (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemp may be used for bioenergy, food, in agriculture, plastics, textiles, building materials, papers (and as a recreational drug and as a medicine). The drug issue of this plant is in focus in the newspapers, which mostly covers the political issues and not the medicinal. Hemp is probably one of the most useful plants in the world. I cannot understand how you can say that the plant is not interesting apart from the medicinal part. I also experience that most of the people discussing the medicinal properties has a fundamentalistic background. The medicinal use of Cannabis is not very common and medicinal properties of the plant is not particularly known and I don't think it could be compared with other more common medicinal plants, like Opium poppy. Question: How should these type of discussions be handled on Wikipedia? For now I am just writing here, and read your answers at my talk page. Is this the "correct" way to do it? --Dehugs (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to explain my improvements - but to keep things diplomatic, I have edited the Erotic Asphyxiation page for two reasons: A grammatical error in the opening sentence, and the irrelevant entry of a "choking game" 'death' in the "Famous Cases" section. There is nothing erotic about the article cited and the entry has no place in the article. If you wish to keep that entry, move it to the relevant "choking game" article. ObjectiveLogic (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with the removal of that content at the least for discussion and a possible rewrite, the user that added it did cite it but with an inline and unformatted external link and I removed the citation to the users talkpage and requested the user to format correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru , just FYI, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Talk:Sybian#Development

I appreciate your efforts, I really do - good stuff I hope that you will see my further comments in the light intended; ie just trying to improve things. It's in no way a criticism of what you've done. Best,  Chzz  ►  23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar... hopefully the simplified layout will help encourage more participation (as the only editor to the page lately has been you updating the AfD's :-/ ) Maybe it is a seasonal thing though. See you around, Mr. Simon. :-) Wikignome0530 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another user, Photomonk (talk), has reverted your photo of Patty Larkin twice now (I've reverted it back each time), using the argument that Ms. Larkin would prefer the studio shot, and that we need to respect her preferences. Photomonk has made no claim to any direct word from the artist, nor shown any documentation to back up his/her statement. -- Couillaud (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

You left this comment at my IP: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Portal:Sexuality. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Simon Speed (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize, but this edit was made thinking I was in fact reverting vandalism. Looking at the page at the time the rendering was a complete mess - layout was not correct in chrome, IE7, or firefox. At the time I assumed it was the main page - digging through history a little reveals it was likely one of the embedded sections (although, I'm not going to take the time to construct a sandbox using those old rev's to prove this...). You can take my word on it, or not - but it was meant with good intentions. Also note: Histories on wiki do not take into account (or, I dont know how to do this) the old rev of linked/embedded sections, so a current preview shows things as 'okay' on the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.238.97 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Simon... I just wanted to express my belated gratitude for your past efforts in helping to protect the "Frot" article from being vandalized, deleted, or merged -- especially since you're a straight guy who didn't have to get involved with gay-on-gay political infighting. This is the only article on Wikipedia that I feel any kind of personal attachment to -- although I know that WP is supposed to be NPOV, I do think it's tremendously valuable that young MSM guys have this Wikipedia Imprimatur "certifying" that frot is Real Sex™, and not Imitation Sex, that they can link to when other guys ask, "So, what are you into?" Throbert McGee (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that image. It's a shame we can't a free-use image of the man himself. Gran² 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your nomination at Commons. They are not derivative works. Here is the Copyright Law of Japan. See article 46. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mind weighing in? Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, if you can help out with discussions or edits on this article more often, please do. I need help regarding Mijopaalmc's constant nitpicking of the article. Nothing I do ever seems to satisfy him, and I often worry of violating WP:3RR when interacting with his edits. You may also be interested in weighing in at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Disputes on Frot with Flyer22. Thank you, and I will see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the []. McKinseies (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simonxag. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simonxag. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simonxag. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]