Archive 2 July 21, 2008 to Aug 8, 2008.

The presence or absence of the video has been a contentious matter recently. Removing it without participating in the discussion is a bad idea. The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video add nothing to the article, would you add a video two people actively engaged in intercourse for the intercourse article? Yami (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video doesn't belong on the article. Yami (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yami: I just wanted to chat with you about your work lately. I'm only one person, and only offering my own opinion. I'm not an admin or anything.

I have my preconception of who you might be, not that it is important, but as possibly Japanese, maybe living in a foreign country, 19 or 20 years old, and relatively new to Wikipedia. From looking at your edits, you seem to have an interest in video games, Pokemon, etc.

I am of the opinion that you are making edits on a variety of sex related articles, because you are trying to do what you feel is to improve Wikipedia by addressing issues that you view that some outsiders to Wikipedia may find objectionable. Articles with explicit images seems to be your current focus. Some people, perhaps you, have the opinion that there is something wrong with explicit images. Some people, probably not you, look at an image, and if they see skin, they immediately try to eroticize the image. Once it is eroticized, then going to pornographic, or just feeling that it may be okay for "me" to see it, but I wouldn't want children, or my Grandmother to see it.

In my mind, there is a distinct line between erotic (or what some people perceive as porngraphic) or even objectionable material. In my mind, there is nothing erotic about nudity. I have seen so many people naked, so many times that it is no different than walking through a grocery store. Naked is not inherently erotic. It is natural and normal -- how we are all born. SO, a Wikipedia image showing someone who is partially naked in the context of an article is not objectionable or erotic. If it is a picture of a breast, a penis, an asshole, it is the same as a picture of an elbow, a knee, a shoulder. If there is no inherent attempt to make it sexual-erotic, then it is just the human body, or some portion of it. The ejaculation article pushes that a bit farther. Yes, the image is sexual in nature, as, of course, ejaculation of sperm is essential in procreation. But, I don't find the image erotic, arousing or pornographic. Again, it is just a part of the human body, operating in the fashion that it is supposed to.

I can't say that everyone I know feels the same way that I do about the topic. But, I find that people who are exposed to sexuality regularly don't find parts of the human body to be inherently arousing. I find that people who are sheltered, afraid or shy about sexuality, and with little experience with it can be aroused by very innocent and normal/mundane things. When they see a picture that includes a naked penis or breast, they sexualize it and eroticize it in their mind. Many of the people who object to images in the sexology and sexuality category often are those kinds of people. They are immediately shocked to see a naked penis, on the penis article, and try to call in pornography, mostly because the only time they see a penis is when they watch pornography. Not because there is anything inhenrently erotic or pornographic about a penis.

So, I am of the opinion that the MORE people see normal human sexuality and sexology in a normal context, the less they will eroticize it. I am not for forcing people to look at images that are pornographic. I think that if enough men see pictures of womens breasts and women showing their breast in public (see top freedom) the more they will begin to not objectify women sexually, and will become to think of it as as normal as seeing a woman ride a bicycle down the street. I am of the opinion that MORE images on articles that are directly related to the topic is better, healthier, and promotes healthy views about the topics, rather than associating anything involving nudity with pornography. The solution to the pornography problem is not to hide the body everywhere, but to expose it everywhere so that people don't inhrently find it arousing.

When you work to keep taking images off of articles, it seems like although you have the best of intentions (I believe that) you are really (in my opinion) acting to keep the world in a mode of objectifying and erotisizing things. It upsets me because we both work towards the same general goal of trying to make the world a better place, and a place where women can be themselves without being perceived as sex objects, but we are pulling in opposite directions. (ypu are pulling in the wrong direction -- my opinion)

BTW, although we may not share views, I invite you to join the Sexology and Sexuality project. You have a general interest in the topic, perhaps you'll choose to help us improve the entire area. We welcome a range of opinions, and yours seems to be on the other end of the spectrum to mine own. Their is a broad range of topics in our project, much broader than you can imagine. Trying to keep a handle on it all is an enourmous task. Currently I have more than 578 diffent Wikipedia articles in my watchlist, and nearly all of them are Sexology and Sexuality related.

So, I'm not suggesting that you change your views in any way. But, if you would not mind reflecting on it a bit I would appreciate it. Please consider that when three or four editors (who are somewhat older and more sexually experienced) fight to not censor, and to add images that some people object to in an article, that it is not because we are dirty old men who want to push porno in front of people or something. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite. Pictures of the human body in the context of the human body and what it does normally are normal, not erotic. The more people that see those kinds of images in normal, and not erotic contexts, the more they will stop to automatically eroticize everything that they see, and build a filter to see someone naked and choose to see it differently.

Regards, to you! Atom (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go to your talk page for my reply. Yami (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct that the video needs to be removed, and I will start a discussion as soon as I get some time. Right now, I am really busy in real life, so it will probably be a couple of days before I can begin. Artichoker[talk] 11:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the edit summary of "Not this again" is not appropriate conduct.Yami (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been exhaustively covered on the talk page, if you bothered to look. Asher196 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Breast. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Asher196 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I specified a reason in the edit summary and i was not experimenting. I was following wikipedia's advice on being bold. I removed images that didn't add educational value to the article or were not straight on subject.

Don't act like i'm some new guy to editing. Yami (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

read the entire message. "and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page" Asher196 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. However, Asher196, there is no need to call others "trolls" in edit summaries, and you both should consider WP:DTTR, when communicating with other established editors, it is generally better to write out your comments in your own words instead of pasting in a template. Useight (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yami Takashi Put a 3RR warning on my talk page for reverting his unilateral edits. First of all, this warning is not valid as I reverted a total of three edits. I then added a delete 1 template to his talk page to illustrate how absurd it is to communicate in this fashion. It was not done out of retaliation. I consider his actions trollish, and said so on MY edit summary on MY talk page. Asher196 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR warning does not need to be given after three reversions have already taken place. It is supposed to be used to indicate to a user that if they continue, they may be blocked for 3RR. However, it would've been better for him to not use the template. Also, your use of a template in order to tit-for-tat is not the best form of communication, it would've been better to let Yami know that he shouldn't communicate via templates. Also note, you do not own your talk page, it belongs to the community. Useight (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you reverted the same edit twice which is dangerously close to braking the 3RR rule. Also I was being bold like Wikipedia asks. I didn't know about the lead image being discussed on the talk page but no where was it brought up that the gallery had been discussed. I was removing images that didn't show a medical or relative content to the subject and what was miscellaneous. Yami (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a total of three edit, which is not a violation of anything, yet you put a 3RR warning on my page as if *I* was some kind of noob. Utilize the talk page before making controverial edits, which is the gist of the delete 1 template I added to your page. Asher196 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting close to the number is worth a warning. Also how was i to know people would argue for having a image like what is currently shown as the lead would be controversial? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep a pure and on topic article they would keep the lead image restrained to a more medical tone. I simple replaced it with a image that already existed on the page. The Image seemed unencyclopedic so I removed and replaced it. It is not like i am out to censor the article. Yami (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also how did you guys on that article allow the current lead to be there in the first place? Somewhere someone must have added it and that was not controversial yet replacing it is?Yami (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Breast article, I hid the gallery so that you need to click a button to show it. See if you like that better. Asher196 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather it is being shown or not it still has many images that are miscellaneous. Also like someone has brought up it does take time for all those images to load even with my high speed connection i have to wait.Yami (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against removing the images if consensus takes us that way. By the looks of it, a number of editors would like the gallery removed. Asher196 (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now though, it is just some editors talking. Consensus is built over time. The reason it has a Gallery is because of an earlier consensus -- see history. If you want to try and float a removal of the whole Gallery, I can direct more people to discuss it. It should be a process of discussion and comments that takes six weeks or so. Three editors offering an opinion in that direction would not be considered a consensus to remove. Atom (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean direct? Yami (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop reverting and use the talk page to discuss the matter until a consensus is reached. This is exactly what your problem was on the Kanto issue. Artichoker[talk] 11:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut from the local paper (Star Trubune): "Kakkoi Con is the weekend interactive destination for all things Japanese, including music, fashion, lifestyle, culture and subcultures. Panels and workshops cover everything from gaming and role-playing to the basics of the Japanese language. There will be musical performances, film screenings, appearances by anime voice actors, gaming rooms and a marketplace with a wide array of products, games, DVDs, clothing and more. Check website for details. (1:30 p.m. today; 9 a.m. Sat.; 10 a.m. Sun. $15-$50. Sheraton Hotel Bloomington, 7899 Normandale Blvd., Bloomington. 612-825-1832"

I think I may go. Atom (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yami:

Sorry to step on your toes. My apologies. I returned the many images you removed from the article. Note that there is a section where we are discussing which images should stay, be moved to a section, or be removed. Please participate in the discussion, rather than removing against a previous consensus. If you like I can invite other sto participate in the discussion and we can see how other people feel as well. In the mean time, please I would appreciate if you would not step on other editors toes (mine own included.)

Atom (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you are talking about are ejaculation and breast, right? I have looked into the matter, and find that I agree with you completely. The video needs to be removed on the ejaculation article, and the gallery needs to be removed on the breast article. What you are doing is not censorship, simply trying to clean-up and remove media which is not needed and instead clutters the article. I support you on this matter, and as I have said before, I will soon be able to directly help you with the content dispute. However, right now I am swamped with real-life stuff, as well as trying to improve some other articles on-wiki. Once things slow down, I shall start discussing things with the opposing editors on the respective articles. Cheers, Artichoker[talk] 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I really don't want to edit articles of that nature, but I agree that a gallery is not necessary. Having such an excessive number of images does not provide any extra encyclopedic content. I also see no reason to have a video on the other article. I hear the article already has an image, so that should be sufficient in portraying the subject matter. 99% of articles do not have a video, so I don't see why this article needs one. Useight (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Artichoker

yeah those are the articles I feel uncomfortable mentioning them on your talk page since you do such good work with the pokemon articles and that kind of makes me want to remain conservative there but as for my editing those articles it purely for the good of wikipedia. I might find the image on the Ejaculation article a little graphic for my taste when it comes to what i expect to see in a encyclopedia i admit that much but articles need images. What articles don't need is multiple representation of content. I mean you don't need 15 pictures of pickachu to illustrate a point that he has yellow to yellow orange fur and red cheek pouches.

To many images are overkill.

@Useight

What ever happened to be bold and focus on the content not the editor.

There is so much red tape to get through on wikipedia. I at least tired to keep the medical images but those editors are so bent on keeping the other images. At least i got rid of the Nude Beach picture with some good logic. every little edit i do though is to big and they want consensus.

How am i turning those images into pornography if i just want to lighten the article's load. Wikipedia needs to limit articles to 10 pictures only. 4-10 in the article and 6 max in galleries with the article counting towards the 10 image limit.

@both

I hate to involve you guys but i know you both and I know you know Wikipedia policies and what is and is not worthy to be in a article. Yami (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "What ever happened to be[ing] bold and focus[ing] on the content not the editor", I hope you're not implying that I'm focusing on the editor instead of the content, because I don't believe that I am. Sometimes, it does seem like there's a lot of bureaucracy you have to cut through, but I think a consensus can be reached to remove the abundance of images. Useight (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on not the same page but different books i mean people are not allowing other to be bold and they focus on the editors who try to help by being bold and tell them they need consensus to even put a period in a article and the users are getting violent on that article. Yami (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking them to consider WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and/or WP:NPA? Useight (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see where that gets me. They won't discuss the lead image but they won't let me change the lead saying consensus has been made but how can it when its still being discussed?

they completely ignored my last post in the lead image 3 section. Yami (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a survey could be a good idea, if they're not just counting votes though. In any case, I have !voted in it. Also, I do think WP:OWN may apply here. Artichoker[talk] 14:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to edit the article or its talk page, but I Support a change in the lead image to image 289. That one is a more crisp image, takes a more encyclopedic angle, and actually provides more information. If you want to move my comment to that talk page or link to it from there, go right ahead. Useight (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made my comments on the other survey as well (also I really do recommend that you indent your comments when needed, its so much easier to read and only takes a few seconds.) Artichoker[talk] 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other article, and its survey, again I'm not going to be posting directly on its talk page, but feel free to move my comment there or add a link there to it. I Support the removal of the video. This is not any attempt to censor the article, I'm fully aware of the no-censoring policy and I'm taking an amoral stand. Instead, my reasoning is this: 1) The video does not add any encyclopedic content that an image could not convey; 2) An overwhelming majority of articles do not have videos, I see no reason as to why this one needs to be an exception (yes, I'm aware it's a process, so are many of our other articles); and 3) Why don't all the other articles have videos? Because it would be a drain on server resources. There's no need to have videos taking up bandwith and server capacity, they're not exactly space savers. We don't have a video of a bowler tossing a strike at Strike (bowling) or a golfer putting the ball into the cup at Golf. Again, I am not censoring, but going for standardization, ease-of-use, and fast load times. Useight (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment about talk page rules, there are indeed rules for participating in talk pages, this includes how to properly thread your comments by indenting them. Please review the WP:TALK guideline, specifically Wikipedia:TALK#Layout which states:

"Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in WP:TP (or, more specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation) to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.).

I've noted that your posts are very difficult to read because of the lack of proper formatting, and I have to say that your attitude is very combative and shows a lack of good faith towards your fellow editors.[1][2] I strongly recommend tempering your comments and abiding by the talk page guidelines. I also urge you to no longer engage in revert warring as you were doing on Breast. You risk being blocked if these behaviors continue. Dreadstar † 16:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. My posts are readable, I don't just respond to one person i respond to the whole discussion. I might talk at a person from time to time but the whole post is public to jump in on.

2. I keep good faith, please do the same.

3. i didn't get into a revert war, I didn't revert that article and the info I removed was not needed. A site that has judgmental tones is not creditable and does not fall into the criteria of being able to use on wikipedia. Removing a image that there is already a representation of is a common and non consensus needing edit. Also those users are so quick to edit and revert my changes that they fail to see what I changed. They were so frantic to undo my edits they removed my contribution of a image to the article and had to put it back because "it got lost in the scramble."

4. Do not make accusations based on text. You can't say my attitude is combative and if it is that means i was attacked or feel attacked.

5. Do not make threats to me on my talk page. You could have gave me a link to the format policy and left but you go and make accusations and threats. That is not acceptable.

Yami (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is revert warring: Lead image:1RR[3][4] Puberty 101 site:2RR[5] Gallery:3RR[6]

The above three marked diffs bring you right up to the edge of WP:3RR, specifically, Wikipedia:3RR#What_is_a_revert.3F, which states:

"A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.

"An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24-hour period are counted."

Additionally, several editors have complained about the readability of your posts and have even had to refactor the talk page to make it more readable. Also, there is no excuse for incivility, even if you feel you were "attacked or feel attacked". Dreadstar † 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I didn't revert the edits themselves, and the website and gallery image were not needed for the reasons i said. The site was judgmental thus discreditable and the image was already represented.

2. The users on that article kept removing my edits without thinking. They wetre so busy trying to undo the edits they didn't see what was edited. they even had to add a image back because of it like i said.

3. I don't care if people complain about my post that doesn't prevent me from doing my job as a editor so it shouldn't be my concern. Yami (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned. WP:TALK is a guideline that is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, and your approach on the Breast discussion page is counterproductive. The edits I point out above are clearly reverts, and if you continue with this disruptive behavior, you will be blocked. Dreadstar † 19:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not reverts, i never pushed the undo. I had to go back and remove the site again because people undone the edits without reason other then they were by me.

The same for that image in the gallery.

Also just because i do not indent does not mean i am disrupting the talk page. Do threaten me. Also i don't see you talking to Atom who was focusing on me and not the content, or his saying how he wants to block my edits. Yami (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be reasonable about this. Even those you went to for support and advice have recommended that you follow talk page guidelines. Not identing is a sign of tendentious editing, "While threading discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and highly recommended since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Wikipedia conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst." Dreadstar † 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Artichoker or Useight asked me to indent i would, but i will not indent just because i am threatened by a bias user who threatens me without getting the whole story. If indentation is not required then why are you threatening me for not doing so? Yami (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I don't know how to make it any clearer, you do not have to "push the undo" to revert, it is undoing the actions of another editor - as I've clearly outlined above, and provided links for further clarification. I'd be more than happy to talk to Atom if necessary, but you'll need to supply diffs of any problematic behavior you believe is happening. And Artichoker did ask you to indent, that's the link I provided above. Dreadstar † 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not warning you for merely not indenting, it's your overall editing pattern and behavior that concerns me. Dreadstar † 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page of the breast article go to the history of the main article you'll see it all. They're just as guilty of it as i am if i am guilty and you can see Atom's comment on wanting to block my edits on the talk page of either the breast article or ejaculate article. IF you got the diffs to explain my wrong doing then you can get the diffs to explain his wrong doing but do not focus on just me because i happen to have a few edits here and there. Right there in the Edit summaries are all the proof you need that they're editing without thinking. I might be at falt with the lead image but the other two things had nothign to do with the main disagreement so don't you dare try and make it out like i am disrupting the article.

The users who undid the edits that were not apart of the orignal disagreement at just as much at fault as anyone else. Yami (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you edit warring against mutliple other editors against consensus, and failing to comply with Wikipedia talk page guidelines - as well as the requests of other editors that you edit in a more readable fashion, so yes, I've focused on you. I've asked for evidence of the disruptive behavior you've claimed about others, and your response is quite unhelpful. Once again, I'll ask you for specific diffs of problematic behavior. My warnings stand. Dreadstar † 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could get the difs to incriminate me then you could get them for atom and the other but here since you want to be lazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEjaculation&diff=229831372&oldid=229663086

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=229704682&oldid=229689689

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=229705067&oldid=229704682

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=229704682&oldid=229669520

Let me ask you how a image that was added before i remove the site and the repeat image could be removed if they were not out to remove my edits just to remove them?

Also they said consensus was made even though the discussion on Lead image 3 was still going. They just stopped talking about it. They are the ones breaking the rules of consensus. If they didn't want to finish the discussion then they shouldn't have a say in what should or shouldn't be in the article through consensus. Yami (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to start with, calling me "lazy" isn't exactly civil, now is it? Secondly, your diffs prove my view that you were edit warring against multiple editors and going against established consensus. I don't see any disrupive or otherwise problematic behavior by the other editors in the first diff you present, looks to be a civil discussion to me. Certain comments about other editor's behavior are allowed per WP:NPA, which states "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.."

The Lead image 3 discussion had no consensus to replace the lead image, and your assertion that since they didn't "finish" the discussion, they shouldn't have a say in the article contents, just doesn't fly. No one expects editors to engage in endless discussions that go round and round the same points over and over again - and consensus is rarely found immediately. You failed to find consensus for your proposed changes and kept on aggressively repeating your arguments over and over, while edit warring and failing to respect talk page guidelines. I'm not sure how you expect to find consensus in that manner, but perhaps the recent survey will put the matter to rest. In the meantime, I strongly suggest you relax a bit, stop edit warring and follow WP:TALK. Dreadstar † 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I proved that they were the cause, and every time i make a point they can't handle they ignore the question. Also you're the one accusing me of being disruptive and unhelpful because you can get diffs to "incriminate" me but not go look for the diffs focusing on their crimes against me and the article.

"How did the image get there in the first placE"

"How is it censorship"

Or when i call Atom on his saying i'm trying to censor and not acknowledging it. I am not war with them they are war editing with me. Also not continuing the discussion means consensus has not been made.

You never answered my question on how a image could be removed if it wasn't any where close to the original disagreement or the site thing or the removal of the repeat image. Yami (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're in charge of your own actions and you cannot place blame on others for what you do. You are engaged in an edit war against multiple editors and consensus, those actions by you goes against Wikipedia policy. The "removal" of the image you posted was apparently the result of standard Wikipedia process, WP:Be bold! and WP:BRD, however, you went beyond policy when you decided to edit war the image/site back into place. That's the crux of the matter. I find it disturbing that you seem bent upon not following WP:TALK even here on my talk page, after multiple requests that you do so. Quite disrespectful, imho. Dreadstar † 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also prove where articoker asked me to indent because i don't see it on those articles talk pages Yami (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artichoker recommended that you indent right here on your talk page. Dreadstar † 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the users had not reverted the edits then i would not have to remove the discreditable site and the repeat image multiple times. Though i see that he did ask me i do not see where it is your business in the first place if i use indentations or not.

Those users are hurting the article by reverting edits that do improve and help the article and i already admitted to the lead image but the other two things (site/gallery picture) are not in the same boat so i would like to ask you not to act like they are. Yami (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going ask that you not contact me any more. I feel you are bias and are not acting like a admin should. You even admited to focusing on me when i clearly told you that they were undoing my edits that had nothing to do with the disagreement and were screwing the article up.

My indentation or lack of is no concern to anyone but my own. It might take a extra few keystrokes but i am a cut and dry guy and if i can say my point without extra steps i will.

I am trying to help the articles and you are accusing me of this and that, ignoring the behavior of the other editors especially Atom and Asher who i suspect of sock puppetry and you accuse me of being uncivil when you come here and make accusation, assumptions and bias opinions. Yami (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor behavior is very much my business. I'm not ignoring the other editor's behavior, they seem to be editing civilly and in good faith. I recommend that you put together some very compelling evidence if you plan on making any sockpuppetry accusations against the other editors, and that you retract your unsupported bad faith allegations in the meantime. Right now, you are the one violating Wikipedia policies and Guidelines by edit warring, making accusations, assumptions and showing bias. If you feel I'm biased, then by all means take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone and last comment is not appropriate for a admin and I will be reporting you to the higher ups. Yami (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly would the higher ups be? Asher196 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would guess Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but its hard to say since wikipedia's policy pages and where to go takes you in circles it seems Yami (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing, if i have bad faith then what about atom. He is saying that i'm trying to censor the article. Yami (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit warring at Breast. Please cease, work issues out on the talk page first, WP:AGF, and don't call people liars who aren't lying. Otherwise, you will get blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A admin has already voiced that, another is not needed. Also that user has done nothing but talk down to me and make false accusations. I will call him a lier if he tries is going say he's treated me fairly when all he does is say i'm out to hurt the article and censor it.

That user is not following the good faith thing by repeatably saying I'm censoring. Also i haven't made any edits to that article today and also those users were also edit waring. If you're going post on my talk page about my actions then you have to do the same on their talk pages.Yami (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist on being disruptive and incivil, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Towit: calling someone a headstrong ass, etc, accusing other's of being disruptive for commenting, refusing to accept consensus on a content dispute. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your email to me. You seem to fail to realize you are edit warring against several people. Even if your claims in the email are true (ie, basically that he's the guilty party), it does not mean it's okay for you to call people names. I'll ask User:Atomaton to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received your e-mail and when was the last time i did something that constituted as edit warring? Have i done any kind of aggressive editing on the articles in the last two days? in fact the ejaculate article shouldn't even be considered because i removed the video once without checking to see if there was anything about it, and then i left it alone to leave it to consensus. How was i to know editors would actually allow it to be there in the first place it would hhave seemed like vanadlism to me. Same goes for the lead image, i removed the image and replaced it with another one not looking to see if editors actually wanted it there. Also do you admit error because Atom said i was being disruptive for making the survey and you get me for accusing him of being disruptive? also the third accusation is totally false. Yami (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm guilty of in the first place is removing things that looked like spam or vandalism the at first site. I didn't check the talk pages on the video for ejaculate or lead image for breast where you'd think people would remove things like those two and keep the article stright forward.

As for the Gallery It was only disputed because i removed a lot of images and Asher said i needed consensus before such a large edit could be made.

Both Asher and Atom as well as the other users have said they answered my questions on when consensus on these were made or how they even allowed this stuff to get on the articles in the first place. but haven'tYami (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss with Yami a set of behaviors that some people object to at Troll. Since that time (although he disagreed with me) his behavior has improved somewhat. I can't say that I felt that being called an "headstrong ass" after trying to help as much as I have was comforting. I do recognize that I can come off as pedantic and condescending sometimes. And I have to agree that the headstrong part applies. SO the term may be another version of my interpretation. The behavior that I have seen that has not improved much is the persistent disagreement with other folks rather than working towards a consensus and trying to see their views and perspective. Civility and working for consensus is an absolutely necessary ingredient to being an editor on Wikipedia. No editor lasts long who cannot do at least a mediocre job of those. I would love to see a concentrated effort to get along with people, rather than repeat a position over and over in three or four or five places.

As for edit warring, I don't think he has reached 3RR on either of the two articles that all of the discussion is on. And as far as creating a survey, I did feel that it disrupted the discussion as the survey asked for consensus on something that we had already agreed on, and were doing. But, I don't think this was a method used to intentionally disrupt, but rather was naivete and inexperience. I think that he does not really understand that the lede image on the breast article has consensus, and what that means. I created a survey for him so that he would need to be patient, and see how other people felt, rather than thinking it was a disagreement with me.

My recommendation/request would be a reduction in the blocked time, if that seems appropriate. Perhaps based on the admins(Rlevse) perception of his reply, and willingness to try and get along better? Atom (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many time i have to say this but to me it seemed like you were in the middle of talking about replacing the lead after i had jumped into the discussion you guys quit and said consensus was reached where i do not see how it was reached. If it was reached all parties would have agreed to it.

The survey is still ongoing, there is no new consensus. The existing consensus was formed before you participated. One editor copied the discussion from the archive into the main article so that it would be clear. The survey ends on August 18th. We will see if there is a consensus for changing the image at that time. Currently, although stil not complete, the survey shows four people oppose changing the lede image, four people support changing the lede image, and one person is neutral. Atom (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also There wasn't even a word about consensus on the gallery. I removed images that were miscellaneous and Asher undid it saying i would need consensus for such a edit. Then you come along saying i'm censoring the gallery and when Asher tried to hide the gallery you undid it saying it was broke when i do not believe you thought that was the case, then you undid mine when i corrected you. At first i thought you misunderstood why it was hidden but when you called it censorship and undid the it again you caused the problem with the gallery.

Let's not dig up the past. The use of the Gallery had been previously discussed. You removing images based on that previous discussion wa against consensus even though there was no ay for you to tell. That is why I recommend putting a comment in about what you plan on doing before you do it. Then, of no one complains, fine, if someone does, apologize and discuss it with them before making any more changes. Atom (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a 100 reasons to keep the thing as is mostly likely but most likely there are 100 more to remove the images or the whole thing itself.

Discuss your reasons on the survey. You have until August 18th. The point of trying to build consensus is getting people to change their minds. Add your comments. Put a polite (and brief) comment on some of the peoples talk pages describing the benefits of your position and ask if they would be nce enough to reconsider. Atom (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't misuse Wikipedia's censorship policies we'd have a smaller gallery or one that was hiden and didn't stretch the page or caue it to jump around like a n idiot as each new row of images loads.Yami (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be things that you desire and want. What if other people don't want those things. What if they find most of those images to be beneficial, and informational? What if their computer loads it in .1 of a second (mine). If you just put a comment on your position that says "My computer takes like 2 minutes to load the gallery". It might persuade some people. I think you needs a faster Internet connection, or computer or something. Atom (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good block on a tendentious editor who continues to aggressively push his POV against consensus, and continues to edit in an uncivil manner. The number of problematic comments is long, here are a few examples:

• Calling other editors liars. [7][8]
• Calling a clearly civil and appropriate comment by another editor "disruptive," [9],
• Making unsupported accusations of sockpuppetrty [10],
• False accusations of violating 3RR,[11],
• General threats with bad faith assumptions [12],
• Edit warring on another user’s talk page. [13][14][15]
• Refusing to abide by WP:TALK guidelines after being repeatedly asked to do so.[16]
• Tendentiously arguing past the point of normal discourse, [17][18]

At this point, I have to disagree with any shortening of the block, considering there has been absolutely no sign of remorse or any other indication that this editor sees the need to change his behavior, . Quite the opposite in fact; he continues to defend his actions and place blame on other editors. Dreadstar † 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar you are a bias admin and i have already reported you you have no place to be saying any such things. Also you need to look at both sides not just one person. I asked you not to contact me and the person incharge of where i reported you said not to make contact. Yami (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating that unsubstantiated charge of bias, as I indicated earlier, I looked at all sides and carefully read the evidence you provided and I'm afraid I don't agree with your assertions. Also, where exactly did you report me, and who told you not to make contact? Dreadstar † 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, I must disagree with the second link you linked to as an example of yami lieing; that was my mistake, I thought I had seen the image before and had thought mistaking like the image had been in the an old copy of the article; however, Yami uploaded under a formally deleted file name, so Wiki software must have added it to the old revisions, much to my mistake.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I undersand the situation, but Yami was uncivil in calling you a liar, that's the point of the diff. A civil response would have been to say that you were mistaken and explain why, calling someone a liar is personalized instead of being directed at content and actions rather than people. Dreadstar † 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call him a lier, you are taking it out of context. Yami (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Atom called me disruptive first so why don't you take a look higher in the diff before you make use that against me. As for the sockpuppet thing i only commented on my thoguths so don't you dare act like i was telling you they were sock puppets. Atom undid the gallery thing twice that is why i gave him a light warning. Like i have said Atom is the one accusing me of bad faith and censorship that is bad faith and the link you used doesn't show bad faith. Also asher kept undoing the talk page disrupting it and removign all my comments and he was just as guilty because he reverted the edits and comments. the rest of your accusations are uncalled for and just because i don't indent doesn't mean i'm a bad person. Yami (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar don't contact me again and i have reported you again. If you spent half this time finding diff against them you might actually make a 10% decent unbias admin. That was a little uncivil and maybe a personal attack but that is how i feel on the subject. Yami (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atom you seem to be the one to want and desire things also That computer/internet comment is unrealistic and does not help your argument only makes you look like a ass. Yami (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Yami. Keep that sort of thing up and someone will protect your talkpage and/or extend the block. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will everyone just start new lines this is gettign confusing jumping around.

I reported you here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=229862401 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Yami (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you report someone to WP:ANI or elsewhere, you need to notify the person reported. I was unaware of the ANI report, in which only one side of the issue was presented. The editor who commented did not appear to have the full story, and certainly is not “in charge” of the place. Further, the copying of my edit made it look like I was aware of the ANI report and that I had commented. Be more careful in the future and clearly identify comments that are copied from elsewhere. Dreadstar † 18:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He looked into the entire matter himself and saw nothing wrong. Based on his comment i am assumign he looked at the diffs between you and me.

Also this is why i ask people to make a new line to keep a linear flow going. I didn't see your edit up here until after i posted that response to you down there. Also because you provided me the link to report you it was assumed you knew about it. You knew i was going report you and yet you continuously apply yourself to matters that concerns me after i called you bias. If you had any kind of ethical standards you would have removed yourself from being involved. Yami (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Dreadstar i provided you Diff that i could think of at the time, where the hell ddi you get all those diffs that are against me? like i said if you spent half the time getting diffs where Atom says he wants to block my editing or where he said the survey was disruptive you might make a good admin. Yami (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a Bias Admin on my back and a Guy who acts like he wants to help but says i'm censoring and sexualizing images annoying the hell out of me. Yami (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I tried. Patience does have its limits. Yami, the comments you made above were pretty much uncivil to every person you talked to. If I can assist you in the future, please let me know. Atom (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No i tried. I tried to keep my cool but i can't because of the reasons i listed above. I'm trying to be civil but i got people all jumping in here and there and putting comments where i have to read everything to find what is new.

Dread wants to cite diffs against me that i explained step by step were not the case and you for every reason i listed on this entire talk page. Yami (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, when I first looked at my watchlist and saw that Yami was blocked for 48 hours, it surprised me. I thought the block must have been too harsh for a first offense of some mild disruption and incivility from someone with a clean block log. However, after reading just parts of his talk page and viewing diffs, it became evident that Yami was being slightly more incivil that I originally thought (as well as a somewhat dubious report). This is unfortunate; Yami, I really though you had learned more about consensus and other Wikipedia policies from our "debate" at Kanto (Pokémon). Reading through your comments, you are focusing too much on the editors rather than the content, something which you accused others of doing. For now, I recommend you leave your computer, cool off, and sit out your block. Then, in two days, you can come back to editing refreshed. When you return, if you still feel like pursuing the original content dispute, I will help you because I do agree with you, and we can all civilly work something out and establish consensus. But please, no more edit-warring, no more name-calling, and no more disruption. I am trying to say this to you as your friend. Thank you, Artichoker[talk] 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yami, you really need to listen to what Artichoker is saying here. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to him an i plan on taking a break, but since the diffs used agaisnt me are not Adequate i should be free of charge. Yami (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yami you're a case Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And since the diffs are more than adequate and other unvolved people agree with me, no I will not unblock you. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. I already explained why You might have me on the first diff but the other two are not adequate.

1. Atom called me disruptive for making the survey and you didn't say a thing to him
2. I did not break consensus. I had commented that because the article was locked even with consensus we wouldn't be able to do anything until after the lock. You totally took that out of context. Yami (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is definitely a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and tendentious editing. From aggressively pushing other editors to answer the same questions over and over, questions they’ve already answered multiple times; to blatant refusal to abide by WP:TALK and format his posts in a readable manner - after repeated requests that he do so; to making unsupported allegations of misbehavior on the part of other editors and administrators; Yami continues to edit in a tendentious manner despite a nearly unanimous consensus that his editing is inappropriate and disruptive; all the while continuing to deny any wrongdoing and pointing fingers at other editors - laying blame at their feet for his own misbehavior. There are many examples, here are but a few:

• Repeated requests to properly format per WP:TALK:[19][20][21]
• Perpetuating the dispute: [22]like talking to a wall[23]
• Over-aggressively pushing his POV and demands:[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
• Even though Yami refuses to abide by talk page guidelines, he insists that others abide by his personal rules for editing - no indenting and no comments associated with "older" discussions: [31][32]
• Continues defending his edit warring on another user's talk page:[33].

Just scanning through the long, drawn-out, argumentative discussions, one can clearly see a pattern of ignoring or not understanding what other editors are trying to say. Yami is aggressively belligerent about not following talk page guidelines, not allowing consensus to move forward at a reasonable pace, and pushing his POV inappropriately.[34][35][36] Dreadstar † 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar i have already told you never to contact me, the person i reported you to also said the same. You are a bias admin and you should have remvoed yourself from this whole thing. Your ethic behavior is lacking.

I already admited i edit wared with the lead on breast image and that the first diff does show my wrogn doing in calling atom a Ass but the other two are not adequate. Also you can go get diffs against me and i provided all these diffs for you and you can't take the time to see them. Atom edit waredagaisnt me and Ashr on the galler and Asher edit war agaisnt me on his talk page. Which you seem to have gotten the diff for with no problem but point the blame towards me alone.

When i got into a edit war with Artichoker we both got the blame because were were equally guilty of getting close to the 3RR but you want to place blame on me solely?

Also what business is it to anyone if i indent it might be proper but i don't indent because i don't want to take the time to remember to do so every time i want to comment. If people don't like it tough.

Also the second diff shows Asher getting bad faith and If they really answered the questions they would have wrote it right after my posts but they stopped talking in the Lead image 3 section. No where would they say why they allowed the image to get there in the first place or why they allowed it to stay so long. a simple "Well there wasnta good picture so we all agreed to allow it, and we couldn't find anythign better to replace it" was all i asked but they kept on talking about me going against consensus and censoring the article.

Also Useight gave me the WP:OWN, [[WP:CIVIL] and WP:NPA Which he felt might apply to the situation. And i still asked for them to simply answer my last question which they did not, If they would have answered the question i would have not asked again.

There was a discussion going on about the lead image bing changed that just dropped off for no reason. Where in that section do you see that i agreed that consensus was made. Consensus can not be made unless all parties agreed to it. How about you provide the diff that shows me where the consensus was made.? Also that last diff you provided for me going against consensus happened when this whole thing started. Also Asher even posted that template that suggested i was some new guy to editing. You going ignore his wrong doing there mr. bias?

Also I asked that Atom stop jumping back and forth between posts and comments so it would stay linear and i could answer his comments questions and concerns in a orderly fashion. I I'm sure you wouldn't want me breaking up the linear flow of something on your talk page.

Also that last diff on these personal rules you say i have is where i told atom not to go up into the discussion and add meaning less quizes that are trollish.

What is the point of adding something like that after the fact? By then my focus was elsewhere not in a older section of the discussion where things are added in where if someone new looked they would think i simple ignored the newer comment. It would make it look like i was avoiding it so to avoid such a thing i simply asked that a new line be made so linear flow is not broken.

And again Asher was continuously removing any comment i added to his talk page. You don't find that disruptive or bad faith mr. bias?

I ask that you remove yourself from being involved like this, not contact me or this talk page and leave me alone. I am going to report you a third time. Yami (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this puts the icing on the cake. I thought Dreadstar was bias but this

		Society Barnstar
		For finding key public domain documents that proved George Thomas Coker's military record and were key in helping improve that article and helped to settle issues regarding it, I salute and thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For providing invaluable assistance and teamwork in uploading and formatting the Coker military documentation on both Commons and Wikisource, I salute and present you with this award! Dreadstar † 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you come at me and it turns out you guys are at least on a friendly enough basis to award each other. Plus don't think i didn't see that you were involved on the Breast Article. You shouldn't be getting yourself involved in matters on a Article that you are affiliated with, an you shouldn't get on someone with another admin you are affiliated with.

I ask that both of you admins never contact me, never involve yourself with me and remove yourselves from this discussion, from this situation and from my wikipedian life. Yami (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&action=history

Line 866: Atom says I'm disrupting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABreast&diff=229948705&oldid=229930419

Asher hides gallery only to have Atom remove it saying...

"m (Gallery was broken - fix)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Thinking its a honest mistake I reverted Atom's undo of Asher hiding the gallery.

"m (Gallery was not broken, it was programed to hid unless someone wants to see it.)"

Atom's False claim of censorship and second revert, 2RR

"(return gallery -- can't see it under the link -- we don't link images -- Wikipedia is not censored)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=prev&oldid=229401382

I revert Atom's unneeded revert.

"(→Gallery: Hiding the Gallery to aid in navigation. This is not censorship this is to lessen the amount the browser window stretches and will

allow better for people to navigate.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229633092

After I removed some image and I had collapsed the gallery, Atom Reverts the Revert 3RR

"(returned images removed without discussion or consensus)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229646947

The rest can be seen in the article's edit history.

This seems to be singling me out, making false accusations and just bad faith. You can find this third box down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breast&diff=prev&oldid=229403215

"The focus of attention, primarily by one editor, on removing images from sexuality articles does not, in my mind, improve the quality of the articles. The rationale for that editor was once that he did not like them, and that we did not want children to see them, and that they were not appropriate, or that they were offensive. Based on rationale to sustain the images by other editors, he has changed his tactics to be more in line with Wikipedia policies, and the stated reasons lately have been that there are too many images, and that an article only needs a few images. "

Yami (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are examples of Atom accusing me of censorship and sexualizing things. Yami (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to govern you. I do have a different opinion, and act to try and block you from harming the article and acting on your own against a standing consensus. Any of the other editors involve din the consens would have done the same -- it just happened to be me who is standing up for it at the moment. I am trying to protect the breast article and the ejaculation article because you are trying to remove legitimate images, often without discussion with other editors first. You perceive the image differently than other people, as a sexual image, and then try to remove it because you want to improve Wikipedia. Well, the breast article has been there awhile. These discussions have come up before with editors who have viewed any nudity as obscene. We have addresses that before, and had a consensus of editors make decisions on keeping the gallery in the breast article. Then you come in and remove the Gallery. That is perceived as acting against an existing consensus. Sure, asking for, and gaining a new consensus, different from the last one, is appropriate. But you have to work to gain consensus, not just walk in and do as you please. Why not try to move slowly on the issue, rather than making sudden changes? There is no race, no time limit, no urgent issue that must be dealt with. Discuss as long as it takes for a consensus to arise and THEN make changes. Atom (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are offended by the image of semen in the article. I have respect for you and your view, but I have to say that you seem to express an aversion to something completely normal and natural. Perhaps, like some, you are taking a medical or human physiology or human sexuality image and sexualizing or eroticising it. It is not from a pornographic movie, it is en encylopedic image of a medical topic. Trying to remove this, and other images in other articles because you choose to view them from a sexual, erotic or pornographic perspective when they are not is not a problem with the image or the article. If you find it offensive, or if it squicks you, again that is not a problem with the article or image. If someone downloads a vido cut from a pornographic movie of a person ejaculating onto someone face and tries to add it to the ejaculation article -- that is a reason to object and remove it from the article. Although it is possible such an image would be appropriate for the bukkake article, it would not belong here. Objecting that a video of a man ejaculating, and that the image includes semen, on the ejaculation article, doesn't seem reasonable.

Anyway, if you can figure out how to unloop the image you like, let's add it to the article. Atom (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Yami: I just wanted to chat with you about your work lately. I'm only one person, and only offering my own opinion. I'm not an admin or anything.

I have my preconception of who you might be, not that it is important, but as possibly Japanese, maybe living in a foreign country, 19 or 20 years old, and relatively new to Wikipedia. From looking at your edits, you seem to have an interest in video games, Pokemon, etc.

I am of the opinion that you are making edits on a variety of sex related articles, because you are trying to do what you feel is to improve Wikipedia by addressing issues that you view that some outsiders to Wikipedia may find objectionable. Articles with explicit images seems to be your current focus. Some people, perhaps you, have the opinion that there is something wrong with explicit images. Some people, probably not you, look at an image, and if they see skin, they immediately try to eroticize the image. Once it is eroticized, then going to pornographic, or just feeling that it may be okay for "me" to see it, but I wouldn't want children, or my Grandmother to see it.

In my mind, there is a distinct line between erotic (or what some people perceive as porngraphic) or even objectionable material. In my mind, there is nothing erotic about nudity. I have seen so many people naked, so many times that it is no different than walking through a grocery store. Naked is not inherently erotic. It is natural and normal -- how we are all born. SO, a Wikipedia image showing someone who is partially naked in the context of an article is not objectionable or erotic. If it is a picture of a breast, a penis, an asshole, it is the same as a picture of an elbow, a knee, a shoulder. If there is no inherent attempt to make it sexual-erotic, then it is just the human body, or some portion of it. The ejaculation article pushes that a bit farther. Yes, the image is sexual in nature, as, of course, ejaculation of sperm is essential in procreation. But, I don't find the image erotic, arousing or pornographic. Again, it is just a part of the human body, operating in the fashion that it is supposed to.

I can't say that everyone I know feels the same way that I do about the topic. But, I find that people who are exposed to sexuality regularly don't find parts of the human body to be inherently arousing. I find that people who are sheltered, afraid or shy about sexuality, and with little experience with it can be aroused by very innocent and normal/mundane things. When they see a picture that includes a naked penis or breast, they sexualize it and eroticize it in their mind. Many of the people who object to images in the sexology and sexuality category often are those kinds of people. They are immediately shocked to see a naked penis, on the penis article, and try to call in pornography, mostly because the only time they see a penis is when they watch pornography. Not because there is anything inhenrently erotic or pornographic about a penis.

So, I am of the opinion that the MORE people see normal human sexuality and sexology in a normal context, the less they will eroticize it. I am not for forcing people to look at images that are pornographic. I think that if enough men see pictures of womens breasts and women showing their breast in public (see top freedom) the more they will begin to not objectify women sexually, and will become to think of it as as normal as seeing a woman ride a bicycle down the street. I am of the opinion that MORE images on articles that are directly related to the topic is better, healthier, and promotes healthy views about the topics, rather than associating anything involving nudity with pornography. The solution to the pornography problem is not to hide the body everywhere, but to expose it everywhere so that people don't inhrently find it arousing.

When you work to keep taking images off of articles, it seems like although you have the best of intentions (I believe that) you are really (in my opinion) acting to keep the world in a mode of objectifying and erotisizing things. It upsets me because we both work towards the same general goal of trying to make the world a better place, and a place where women can be themselves without being perceived as sex objects, but we are pulling in opposite directions. (ypu are pulling in the wrong direction -- my opinion)'

BTW, although we may not share views, I invite you to join the Sexology and Sexuality project. You have a general interest in the topic, perhaps you'll choose to help us improve the entire area. We welcome a range of opinions, and yours seems to be on the other end of the spectrum to mine own. Their is a broad range of topics in our project, much broader than you can imagine. Trying to keep a handle on it all is an enourmous task. Currently I have more than 578 diffent Wikipedia articles in my watchlist, and nearly all of them are Sexology and Sexuality related.

So, I'm not suggesting that you change your views in any way. But, if you would not mind reflecting on it a bit I would appreciate it. Please consider that when three or four editors (who are somewhat older and more sexually experienced) fight to not censor, and to add images that some people object to in an article, that it is not because we are dirty old men who want to push porno in front of people or something. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite. Pictures of the human body in the context of the human body and what it does normally are normal, not erotic. The more people that see those kinds of images in normal, and not erotic contexts, the more they will stop to automatically eroticize everything that they see, and build a filter to see someone naked and choose to see it differently.

Regards, to you! Atom (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yami (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been drawn out more then it needed to be but i hoped i pointed out i wasn't the only person to do the very things That I got shunned for.

Atom focused on me and not the content when he accused me of sexulization and censorship. He broke 3RR thing He called me disruptive in one form or another.

If you are going punish me then you have to punish him because he is just as guilty and maybe the others but right now I'm tired and don't have the energy to find diffs against them. Yami (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Asher is in the right in this case. If you see WP:BLANKING, "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." If he removes a comment, it is assumed that it has been read. If you're trying to answer a question another editor has, just answer it on that other editor's talk page. Useight (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well more or less it was a whole group discussion against me behind my back. Go check it out if you'd like its very funny how people talk when they think they're behind your back or you won't look for them.Yami (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all know you are watching, we just don't care at this point. This is tiresome to the point that I don't care about the article in question anymore. It's just not worth the hassle. Asher196 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yami, you too where talking behind our back to Useight and Artichoke.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

really now? I said things like "where should i go i think I'm going report him I've had enough" "He'll probably not have the patience to wait for consensus" Yami (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you claimed we were forcing you into the survey --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did i agree to the survey? Atom asked if i wanted to do one but did a agree to it? Yami (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a survey, it's completely voluntary, you can't force anyone to take part.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point of why a survey was brought up in the first place.

Atom asked if i wanted to have a survey to get consensus i didn't agree to it but he made one anyway i never said i was forced into it i said he forced it into the discussion. Yami (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you clearly aren't interesting in discussing the issue and coming to any sort of agreement. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to discuss the content, he wanted to discuss the editor. Censorship this censorship that. HE and you guys all have ignore my comments and said consensus was made when it was not. Yami (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you see Consensus had been reached, in Lead image 3. I realize no one responded to your comments, but your comments where asking rather irrelevant questions, and your following changes where disruptive, as well as your treatment of other editors and even Admins. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where was consensus reached? When i changed the lead image Asher got changed it back and it turns out you guys were in the middle of tryign to get consensus on changing the lead image which should be a no brainer on changing to a better one. I posted where the discussion was taking place, that meant that you guys had not meant consensus if you were discussing it.

You guys kept on not answering how as editors you could ever allow such a unencyclopedic image to surface on the article. Yami (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered that for you three seperate times. The image is was not considered to be unencyclopedic then, it isn't considered to be unencyclopedic now. I see that you have a different view. That's okay. But, your question has been answered again. Atom (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although you don't seem to understand how consensus works, that doesn't mean that consensus was not there. A new editor coming along with different ideas does not remove or destroy consensus. You did not have to participate in the discussion in order for the consensus to have been found at some earlier time. I started the survey for you, on your behalf. Yes, I know you were more interested in arguing than doing a survey. We were more interested in finding a consensus, or in this case, defending a consensus that was not being respected or recognized. Out of respect for your stated desire (to change the image) I (and others) recognized that a survey would allow you to do more than just argue endlessley, but to have an opportunity to change consensus, and therefore, reach your goal of changing the image (that was your goal, right? Not arguing about something that wasn't going to change based on how often you said you didn't like the image?) Atom (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC) You did not directly answer the question. Also There was a discussion that was going on in Lead image 3 that meant a new discussion on a new consensus was underway. If you guys or someone else didn't want the image changed you wouldn't have been discussing it. You stopped discussing it after my last post in that section and act like consensus has been reached. IT has not because a new one is needed because a new discussion was made. The consensus of that discussion has not been reached. Yami (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A seperate topic I want to bring up with you is that you asked earlier when a user called you a troll, what he meant, and why he called you that. There is an interesting essay/opinion about that over in the Meta-Wiki (See Troll Essay). It isn't a meaningless insult, when someone says it they are criticizing your behavior or communicaton style. The essay describes troll like behavior as edit warring, uploading inappropriate content, misuse of process, pestering and misplaced criticism. They then go on to say "The nature of trolling is to be disruptive, and one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that are not quite against the rules. No matter how great your definition of trolling may be, a dedicated troll will find something you have not thought of yet."

I don't want you to think that I have this opinion about you. I know that you are a young, and fairly inexperienced Wikipedia editor (years with a login does not translate to experience) with a good heart and good motivations who wants to participate and wants to earn the respect of his peers by doing good things in Wikipedia. If you look at the behavior of other editors as an example, and then read up on some of the wikipedia policies, I have no doubt that you will be a most outstanding and respected editor one day. But you can't get other peoples respect by behavior that people might fit into the category of edit warring, pestering, inappropriate content, misuse of process and misplaced criticism. People perceive your enthusiasm and persistence the wrong way. And above all, if you don't respect what other people tell you (and hear what they are saying) then they are not going to respect you. Telling editors and admins who point out that your indent style is confusing that you don't care about that and won't do it is not going to win them over. Regarding other peoples views carefully and respecting what other editors tell you will always increase their respect for you. Atom (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages are public and are not owned by the people they relate to. He was removing anything i placed on his talk page no matter what it was which is a disruptive form of editing. Useight had even told him that it was not right for him to call me a troll. I don't care what you say calling a person a troll is a insult and was not needed.

One can remove whatever they want on their own talk page, even though they are not private or owned by the individual. That is Wikipedia policy. It is acceptable to suggest someone behaves like a troll. It is not acceptable to call them names. That is against the WP:CIVILITY policy. He was wrong to call you names. I was trying to explain why he might have felt that way. Atom (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you as a headstrong ass that keeps seeing censorship where non exist and is afraid of losing whatever hold they have over the articles i have "soiled." I read the policies that relate to me at the time. If i need to brush up i go find what i need. I learned a lot during my experience with Artichoker on the Kanto (Pokémon) Article and I'm using that to improve my edits since then. I know what to look for in a reference, I know a little more about non-free images and i learned not to overkill things with needless photos.

As far as I know, I have always been polite to you, and so, calling me a headstrong ass is probably not appropriate, and pretty rude to someone who has been courteous and helpful to you. I have done you the courtesy of being honest with you, and been friendly and supportive. People who don't care about you don't waste the effort to tell you when you are wrong -- your friends do. I think when you talk about "afraid of losing" you are suggesting WP:OWN. What the editors who respond when you remove meaningful material from the article are doing is protecting the article. As both the articles you are working on are within the Sexology and Sexuality Wikiproject, and also frequent targets of vandals, and people who do not understand the Wikipedia does not Censor policy, there are a number of people in both of those projects who have the articles on their watchlist, and respond quickly when someone modifies it in a negative fashion. I participate in both of those projects. Atom (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't respect you because you repeatably accused me of censorship, viewing things that i do not view the way you claim and now misusing wikipedia processes.

So be it, you have a right to your feelings. However, could you point me to a diff of someplace where I accused you of censorship? I have discussed the topic a number of times with you, and discussed my objection to censorship, and how some of your behavior could be interpreted as censorship, but I have not accused you of anything. Also, I have ackowledged a number of times that you have said that you don't wish to censor any article, and do not believe in censorship. However, know that I, and others judge you on your actions as well as your words.

If a image is not proper for a article that means it should be removed. Common sense should be used to determine what would be in an encyclopedia. The rules on what a photo in an Encyclopedia might be a little dry and cut and paste but they have been in use for many years even the years where nudity in a educational book was not seen fit.

Just because i mean something is not appropriate does not indicate that i mean it is of need of censorship or that i find the subject offensive.

Yes, I understand that. But in several places you have given your rationale for saying that an image was not appropriate. The rationale for removing an image has everything to do with whether it is editing or censorship. I have no doubt that when you say you want to remove an image, and your reasoning is that it is not appropriate, that you do not feel that censorship has anything to do with it.

However

QUIZ :

Which of these things are improper rationale for removing an image?

My rationale for removing this image is:

A)"The image is of a pig, and the topic of the article is Ejaculation."

B)"Its so cut and dry. Fluid that makes babies shot out of you not much more can be said."

C)"I am replacing the image with the one we discussed on the talk page that is larger, and more in focus."

D)A girls gone wild shot of two tits is not encyclopedic.:

E)"I checked to status of the image, and it is copyrighted, and used without permission."

Q: Would any of the above be considered to be censorship by people in the Wikipedians against censorship project?

A: Two of them would be.

Atom (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By this i mean that the tone or the way the image has been carried out is not what an encyclopedia would use. A Encyclopedia would not use a contributor's dog laying on its back in the "Rub my belly" pose. That encyclopedia would have the dog viewed from the side standing up straight.

I do not sexualized images, see them as offensive unless they are meant to offend and i do not censor.

How is it censorship when i Swap out a image of breast for a different one? You never answered that you always talked about it being consensus but not why you called it censorship.

I don't consider that to be censorship. Trying to replace an image that is a photo of a person, with a hand drawn image might be, under some circumstances. Atom (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also as i and even Asher has told you that hiding a gallery is a tool for editors to use to improve. Just because you hide something behind a "link" as you put it does not insitute censorship.

Attempting to hide images so that they can't be seen is considered to be censorship by some. There used to be an Linkimage Template some time back that accomplished exactly that, and it was removed from Wikipedia, as it is policy that we do not place images behind links. In this specific case, my problem was that hiding the gallery was opposite of the standing consensus to have the gallery visible -- as that is the purpose of the gallery.Atom (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a 200 image gallery you would hide it so you don't overwhelm the page and cause the user long drawn out loading, page skipping and stretching.

In the breast article there are currently 96 images, one of which you added this week. Discussion to clean up the gallery has consensus, 20 of the images or so are discusses as candidates for a rotating gif image, and removal from the Gallery. All of the other images are on topic, some of them are discussed ro removing from the gallery to place into the article. The Gallery is at the end of the physical article, and so no one has a need or desire to "hide the gallery". Atom (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3-5 of the images in the gallery on breast actually contains nudity. The rest are medical images and other things that i have no ideal how you would get the idea of me being able to sexualize them in anyway or even be able to censor it. How would you censor a picture of cells from the breast that have been stained to show up? You can't and you can't censor many of those images. Removing content that is miscellaneous is not censorship.

My comments about sexualizing are based on what you have said a few times. I see a medical video of ejaculation that shows that process vividly. You see it and it is (I quote) "a dick shooting cum". I see an image of a pregnant woman's swollen breast, and you see (I quote) "a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods". Whatever you want to call it we have different perceptions. If you want to remove an image because of your different perception, based on the inappropriate nature of the photo, and your reasoning for that are these quotes from you, then many people would call that censorship. Atom (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You blocking edits claiming they are censoring is a dangerous and hurtful act. So far your the only one to say its censorship so in that you do not have the right to block mine or anyone's edits just because you think its censorship. If it was obvious and blunt censorship such as removing the lead entierly and wrighting "This image is porno and shouldn't be here" then you have a case but simply removing material or changing it or how it is viewed is not censorship.

You go to a adult website and you'll most likely come up to a "must be 18 to enter" page with a enter and exit button. That is meant to inhibit viewership but does not embody the true form of censorship. Click enter and you'll see all the Tits, pussy, Cock ass fucking, sucking and good old licking that you want.

Got a fetish you can find material to please your appetite for it. Some might censor it but you can always find it. Look up the guy from harry potter and you'll see all suggestive images of him nude and images of him fully nude where you can see his penis (unless its photoshopped then its someone else's.)

I am not sure what you mean by the last few paragraphs. I don't see any point. On a pornography site, the site is required by law to check age, and there are other legal requirements. (See copa) Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an online encyclopedia. Both are protected by the first amendment to the constitution, and the legal test that applies is called the Miller_test, which is used by a court to decide if something is obscene or not. Furthermore, Wikipedia has a policy on this, Wikipedia is not Censored. I quote from that policy "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content" and "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article". What kinds of things might be considered as to the appropriateness? Is there already an image of this in the article? Is the image on topic? Does the image illustrate the point being made in the section it is associated with? Is another image visually better at illustrating the point? Are two otherwise appropriate images to close together for their respective sections? (Can one be moved?) And such. Atom (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when you got your views of censorship but i will tell you only one last time that i cam in no way asking for, acting for, or promoting censorship. Yami (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it you accused me of censoring when it is clear that i do not find the current lead image for breast appropriate based on how encyclopedic it is not its content. You are falsely using the No censor policy to keep content on and out of the article and not be changed.

I find you to be in bad faith especially since you have accused me of censorship at least 10 times. Yami (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep our conversations as simple as possible.

Your new reason is that the image is not appropriate, because it is not encylopedic. What do you mean by "not encyclopedic" Could you be more descriptive please? You said that it reminded you of a "girls gone wild video", is that what you mean? What do you mean?

You are entitled to your opinion of me. The only thing I am guilty of is impeding you and disagreeing with your opinion. The only reason I impeded you is because you tried to change the image, against consensus without prior discussion. You did note, in our discussion, that my opinion is that the best image for the lede was "Image:95C.jpg" one of the two you proposed, not the existing image. How is that trying to keep the content on? I have not accused you of censorship, I said that removing an image based on the rationale you used would be censorship. Those are two different things. Atom (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained it to you and the others multiple times. A photo of a man's girlfriend or wife that is pregnant with their bra freshly removed leaving an indent, their shirt lifted up outside and the photo take from a amateurish point of view.

A proper image would be of both breast frontal and maybe a additional side view. Illustrated or photography. Even a internal Anatomy/outer appearance image would be more proper then the current lead.

A Medical tone image as in Frontal(and maybe Side view) and/or Anatomy Illustration.

The Girls gone wild image as i call it is no more then just a user who uploaded a shot of his girl's breast. Did he or the person that added it even discuss it before adding it or did they simply place it there?

Let me give you an example. I replaced the Penis Lead image with a Anatomy illustration from the article's body with no problem. The original image of a blurry uncircumcised penis.

I had two reasons for doing so.

1. A uncircumcised penis was already represented in the article so there would be no lost as to what a uncircumcised penis looks like.
2. A The Penis has always been represented by an anatomy illustration traditionally viewed from the side. Never have I ever seen a real photograph be used to illustrate the penis first in any research material from my school days. Some books would have a photograph at the bottom where the penis is viewed from the front where the model is in the standing at attention pose. Like i have said The Anatomy Illustration always comes first, then photographs. That is how a Medical Journal and a Encyclopedia carries out the tone of their Illustrations and use of photos.

I have in my procession 'The New Illustrated Family Medical & Health Guide' By the editor of Consumer Guide (R). (C) 1988

though just a year younger then I, from page 280-308 the book discusses the reproductive system of both males and females.

The penis is illustrated frontal view first with red for the testicles and their plumbing. Under that its illustrated with the traditional side view of the entire anatomy of the penis.

The breast though not represented by a live model is illustrated with a side anatomy illustration view and later a frontal view.

Its traditional, its a little dry but its Encyclopedia and proper.

Also you have accused me of censorship and the sexualization images.Yami (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the way you describe the breast image, having no knowledge of the image or its history, and that I don't see any of that in the image is what concerns me. It is okay if we have different perceptions, but it is not okay if that perception, or misperception based on fiction is used for removign an image.

I edit the penis article too, and I saw your change to it. I did not like it, as it took a real photo of the topic and changed it with a drawing. The drawing looks pretty good, I admit, but it changed thre nature of the article. I think that you goal with that may be that you wanted it to look more like a medical diagram. I think that is a positive motivation. I think other editors prefer an image/photo of the real thing over a diagram. Especially, ni the lede, the image should help the reader immediately understand the topic. A diagram is more appropriate in a seciton that discusses the anatomical nature of the topic.

Nevertheless, after our previous discussions, and what I considered to be a good faith effort to improve the article on your part, I felt that I should leave the change alone as it clearly was not censorship, and two editors can disagree about a lede image all of the time. I felt that if other editors came along and complained about the change, then that would tell me whether I was being objective or not. So far no one has complained, even though that article is watched pretty closely. So, I feel that you should have discussed in the talk page before changing the image. You could have looked to see if there was active discussion on the image before changing too. Just a quick glance at the talk page, and if the topic of the image is not active, drop in a note that says something like "Checking out a new image that I think is more encylopedic." and then make the change. Anyway, you note I didn't say anything about the change on your tlak page, or on the article page, or revert the change even though I have a difference of opinion about that image. Atom (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the image, I am not sexualizing anything you are making it fiction. You are falsely accusing me of things over and over in your mud slinging campaign. You act like current presidential candidates. they say they respect eachother then you see a add of them blaming each other.

Just because i have a certain way of describing thing does not mean that i am sexualizing it. I might be standardizing it but in no way am i sexualizing it. When i say something is "Girls gone wild in tone" I mean that it looks like the current image of the breast article. Shirt hicked up and breast out in public. When i say medical tone i mean a professional anatomy illustration or photograph.

I removed and replaced the image based on what was a proper Choice. You wouldn't have a guy in a Pickahu fursuit to be the lead of the pickacu article would you? Or the pokemon article since i think individual pokemon articles have been permanently 86ed.Yami (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atom i am not going argue with you any more but i am not giving up change issues.

In the future keep from going back into older parts of the discussion and adding new content other then spelling and grammar fixes. like that Trollish quiz you stuck in at the top where my attention was no longer being drawn, I don't know your motive for going to old sections and doing such a thing but i can speculate its to make me look foolish in some way. start a new line at the bottom of the current discussion so people don't have to jump around to see where your responding. Yami (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are blatantly refusing to abide by our policies. You have been repeatedly told to quit with this whole "I haven't done anything wrong" attitude. If three admins (and many other users) believe that you've done something wrong, then maybe it's time to just submit and admit that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong. Please take in everything said against you above. Perhaps after this 72 hour block you will realise that it's better to stop being rebellious and just follow our simple and easy to understand guidelines, which will, undoubtedly, lead to a harmonious editing environment for everyone involved. If you wish to contest this block, please use the {{unblock|''your reason here''}} template. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This block is completely unfair and unjust.

I admitted to waring with the lead on breast and calling atom a ass but this is totally unacceptable and a blatant misuse of power. how can i be breaking policies if i couldn't edit in the first place and what policies.

Both the admins before you have already proved to be bias because the same day i was blocked the first time they exchanged awards and the second i call Dreadstar bias Relvse comes to the rescue. Yami (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also all but artichoker are users who were activly involved in the dispute and should not weigh in on your decision. Yami (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost anyone can exchange awards with other users if they feel that user has done an excellent job in relation to whatever article or action they did. Further more, the number of admins is somewhat small, it's not unexpected that they would be familiar with one and another. In fact, a good number of just us regular Wikipedians are familiar with one another too, especially if we tend to share interests in similar articles, but that doesn't make just bias, any more then it makes your Boss bias when he yells at you for smoking indoors, when you're not suppose to; guidelines are guidelines, but they exist so that all us editors will get along together and can work with one another, even when we have huge differences in POVs. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Dreadstar has a active history on the breast article could make him bias.

Also to exchange awards the very same day would easily make them bias. The blocking should have been handled by a non involved admin who does not know the two and does not have any history with the breast article.

Also Dreadstar should have removed himself from the situation the second i called him bias and despite being told about the report and ruling he continued to contact me.Yami (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admit that you're completely wrong and maybe you'll be unblocked. Also, it's incredibly unlikely that "there should be action taken against all the admins involved" will ever come to fruition. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is not proper for a admin and is disrespectful. I will be reporting you as soon as this block is over or if i have to contact up the chain myself.Yami (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also why don't you ask Relvse to admit he was wrong because 2/3 of the diffs used for the blockign were proven false and out of context. Yami (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i got confused and thought i had to copy past that to submit the request. Yami (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yami (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): {{{1}}} Request handled by: ScarianCall me Pat! 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has all gone further then it should have, but harsh comments to me and extending blocks are not the answer.

I'm willing to talk to the other editors involved in a civil manner, but i request that the admins that are involved with both blocks and each other not include themselves.

I think me and Atom can make amends, and the survey to make consensus on the breast article is well underway and i will accept any out come.

There is no need for further finger pointing or harsh and uncivil comments.

I also have made it clear that i admit to war editing on the lead image for the breast article. And i did admit to calling Atom a Ass and i apologize to you Atom, and maybe like me and Artichoker are now, you and me might be able to work in a civil and all things in the past manner in the future. Yami (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best to calm and cool down but for the past many days i have felt ganged up on and i feel violated by the justice system of wikipedia.

If i have gotten uncivil in the past few days i am sorry, but there is a lot of things that contributed to it.

I hope me and all the editors can work to get a consensus and change the articles for the better of the article and wikipedia.

Not to change the articles for some pride or moral stance but education and what wikipedia stands for. We all know that wikipedia isn't perfect, and we all know the attitude towards it because of the fact anyone can edit it but wikipedia has evolved since i first started editing and now people can't put a donkey on a pig article, and can't edit the Bush article to say he's a she male or trans gendered female.

Again Atom, Honeyman, Asher and who ever else on that article i hope we can work to improve it and set our feelings, pride and attitudes towards each other and ourselves aside.

I admit i once thought of Artichoker as my greatest pain in the ass, now i see and respect him as a friend who is my greatest pain in the ass lol. (that wasn't a personal attack just a joke, but he is a friend.)

Me and Artichoker have had a past and soon all of you and me will have a past. I didn't hold my past with Artichoker against him, and i doubt I'll hold it against all or any of you. Yami (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't know if I can believe you Yami, it shouldn't take a 120 hour block to convince you to work with other editors.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good faith. If you had bias admins against you, you'd be a little mean spirited and easily capable of getting blind with rage like i've been experiencing.

If you don't want to believe or work together in the future, i won't force you but i will try and work with the other two+ Yami (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've full protected this page for a couple of hours. This is to stop you ranting against the apparent bad behaviour of the admins involved. Please stop accusing people of things that aren't real. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently received a complaint from Yami, to the effect of the conduct of Scarian and Rlevse has been improper, and that they have, in their rôle as an administrator, endorsed one another despite a pre-existing friendship.

Naturally, it stands to reason that administrators who are friends (on- or off-Wiki) should not be acting in their capacity as an administrator, with the intention of "helping the other out": basic standards of recusal do exist.

I would be interested in receiving input on how credible this complaint is.

AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact)} 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not forget Dreadstar as well. Yami (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked Yami. AGK: Rlevse and I have had very, very little contact on Wiki (and none off-wiki). There was no secret dealings or anything like that. I was asked to review the situation which I did. Nothing underhanded occurred. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarian, I've been filled in fully on the situation, and am satisfied that the complaints have no substance. Thanks for responding. AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact)} 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not to stir the sharks up but what about you and Dreadstar? Yami (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thin link between Dreadstar and Rlevse (they exchanged barnstars), but I am satisfied that Rlevse did not recommend to Scarian (in response to his request for input) that you have your block extended because you had been on the bad side of Dreadstar: the link is simply not that strong, and there is simply no reason to suggest this is the case. I think it's time to put this to bed now, AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact)} 00:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also why am i auto blocked? Yami (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocked basically means that your username is unblocked but your IP is still blocked. Are you sure this is still occuring? Useight (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that I have a pre-existing friendship with Scarian is not true. I do not recall any contact with him at all prior to this case. He asked for input on my talk page and I gave it, that's all. As for Dreadstar, we'd just come out of a long dispute at the Coker article about one day prior I gave him a barnstar, and also gave one to Avruch and Elonka the same day. That this occurred about the time of this block is sheer coincidence. I saw Yami's thread on Dread's page and that's how I came here. That thread was started before I posted the barnstar and before I did the block. I have recused myself before and do so when need be, such as an arb case, the Coker issue, and an SSP case where I had prior dealings with someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Rlevse: much appreciated. AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact)} 00:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no undue collusion between Rlevse, Scarian and myself; and a lot of editors have my talk page watchlisted. Dreadstar † 00:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head there, Dreadstar: no undue collusion is a perfect summary of my conclusion to the complaint. Thanks for your input, AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact)} 00:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hallå, Dreadstar and I were discussing whether it'd be appropriate to extend Yami's block. Would you be partial to this? He does appear to be refusing to abide by our policies. Or would you be more inclined to let the block lift naturally and see if that sets him straight? I'm okay with either, but he does seem unrelenting, to be honest. Wondered what your opinion was. Thanks. Hejdu! ScarianCall me Pat! 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)"

That is off Rlevse talk page. Plus you two were working on the Coke article and awarded eachother the same day i got blocked. I also called you bias, reported you and asked you to not contact me multiple times.

You repeatably came back to hound me about me being uncivil and not indenting when it wasn't even a rule breaker.

lets not forget that you have a editorial history on the breast article which this all started with. Yami (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Scarian where were you and Dreadstar talking? i don't see anything on your talk pages. Yami (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared your autoblock, you should be able to edit freely now. Dreadstar † 01:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Yami (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good, and please try to stay unblocked =P. As for the cheatmonkey thing, I went back in and adding information to the references. I checked the site and it said the author's name was cheatmonkey, so I added that. However, I still don't believe that site is reliable and it may contain user-submitted content. In any case, I'm glad to see some rationality in your statement that it can be removed; I'll look into the matter. Happy editing, Artichoker[talk] 02:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i was told the site itself was reliable and what not, but wikipedia policies are so confusing sometimes. I know half the policies seem like they take you in a circle. I'd find the policy but my patience with finding policies has been lessened in the past week or so. I think it was a user on that artile's talk page that mentions game sites like that being creditable. Yami (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad that whole drama is over in any case. As for your content on the Torchic article, I would like to remind you that the issue was not existence (everyone knows that Torchic does not have an active flame) but rather notability. If you have something to add then you should always back it up with reliable sourcing. This was the same ordeal we went through during the Kanto episode. But frankly, I think you just picked the wrong article. There was a 2/493 chance that the article you picked would be a featured (or formerly featured depending on the time you edited it) article, and therefore have a generally higher standard of inclusion. My guess is that if you had picked any other article (besides Bulbasaur) you would have been able to add the information without opposition! Artichoker[talk] 10:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, thanks for the barnstar. I really appreciate it. But as for the Pokémon Platinum article I didn't really write much of it at all; just helped save it from being merged for the time being. In any case, thanks again, and happy editing. Artichoker[talk] 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]