Talk:Clothes free movement

Why?
Page created due to an incredible amount of redundancy and overlap of content between nudism and naturism. Also provides a more neutral area to discuss disambiguation between the slightly different movements. Dandelion1 07:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that similar info is in one place, it will be much easier to remove crappy info, edits, stupid external links, and other silly things.Dandelion1 08:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Reconcile with nudity article
Information on this page needs to be reconciled (moved, merged, added) with nudity. Dandelion1 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup! Help!!!
OK. Because majority of text came from naturist and nudist sources, there needs to be a major NPOV cleanup that does not show bias. Please help! Dandelion1 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki chaos
Well, I'm not going to comment one way or the other on merging Nudism and Naturism into one article (still, I would like to read the discussion leading up to the merge). A big issue does need to be addressed. Currently there are numerous duplication in the interwiki links being that this article is pointing towards both Nudism and Naturism articles on other wikis which still treat the two as separate subjects.

A decision needs to be made as to which article on each wiki is more closely related to this one now. Someone who can read the other linked languages needs to make a quick scan and remove duplications. --StuffOfInterest 18:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is so much overlap between nudism and naturism that is very difficult to have any article realistically trying to separate them. Another problem is that in each country, the principles of naturism may be more like another countries version of nudism. Its very odd. There is a difference though, and some long acadademic articles have been written that have brought some clarity to the issue. Germany has three basic versions including FKK, and then they have something called progressive or modern nudism which even gets more confusing. If we were to just pick one of those movements or labels/articles and say that one best represents the clothes free movement in general would not do any justice to the subject. Unfortunately, I believe they should establish the same tactic, and then have a disambiguition section like this article does. The problem was people here were creating entirely different movements called naturism and nudism, with similar discussions about overlapping phenomena being written differently, and one side claiming more credit in one area than the other, which is slightly misleading and non-NPOV. There are differences in the US and many other countries, but it kind of has to be laid out in a historical, country by country approach. It was a massive headache to try to reconcicle them without adopting the merge and disambiguation approach.Dandelion1 18:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should only be one article. My main headache is that the term "Clothes free movement" looks a little too PC for my tastes.  I'd say to use the Google test.  Naturism draws 1.59M hits.  Nudism draws 3.39M hits.  "Clothes free movement", in quotes, draws a whopping 92 hits and several of these are links to Wikipedia clones.  With that, I'd have the content under "Nudism" with redirects under the other two.  Inside the article there could be a section describing differences between the two but the bulk of the article would probably pertain to both.  Also, based on the above Google results, I'd remove the interwiki links for Naturism on languages where a Nudism link exists.
 * (See response in next section)


 * Regardless of all that, you've been doing a great job cleaning up the various nudity related articles. Thanks for the efforts. --StuffOfInterest 18:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There is plenty of room for improvement. The articles are still quite bad. I see some of the same problems on related sites in other language wikipedias.Dandelion1 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Move content to Nudism?
StuffOfInterest has suggested moving content at Clothes free movement to nudism (see discussion above).
 * (1) Concern over a non NPOV article title. I would be concerned about moving all content to nudism, it is not an umbrella term, even if we just look at the US, for all clothes free activities and philosophy. As an example, many consider naturism and the free beach movement to be distinct from that. AANR, the main US nudist organization, has historically had a contentious relationship with the free beach movement and naturism.
 * Concern on the effect on the portal. Would the same pertain to the Portal:Clothes free? What if I named the Portal:Nudism? The nudism movement is mainly of interest to people who associate or are interested in that label, not a broader movement, and certainly not to those who identify heavily with naturism.
 * As a personal example, I am not a naturist or nudist, and I have been boycotting nudist resorts for four to five years now because of their lack of support for public lands initiatives, see criticism of the clothes free movement (which I changed from its former title criticism of organized naturism and nudism). I also resigned from The Naturist Action Committee because I felt that their insistance on speaking to naturists in their action alerts was counter-productive as it alienated nudists and other that do not associate with labels, such as those who frequent clothing-optional beaches (whom are often unaffiliated with formal groups and labels).
 * (2) Clothes free is an emerging NPOV term for clothes free acitivities among major naturist/nudist organizations. A very major clothes free/naturist organization, ClothesFree International (formerly the International Naturists Association) has recently adopted the term clothes free so it doesn't have to choose sides between naturism and nudism. They are arguably one of the most influential organizations in the US based on the fact they produce webcasts and generate an enormous amount of income, compared to AANR (main US nudist org) and TNS (main US naturist org). This is a very significant development in moving people towards using NPOV language when discussing a broad range of family-friendly activities. In a discussion about the name change they wrote:


 * Some people don't like being labeled.


 * Just like a person who periodically works in their garden might not want to be labeled a "gardener", the words "Clothes Free" doesn't label the person as does the word "nudist" or “naturist”. "Clothes Free" is catching on as the new friendly replacement to "nudist". Many resorts are now calling themselves clothes free resorts instead of nudist resorts. The words "Clothes Free" points at the clothes that are gone, instead of pointing at, or labeling the person.


 * As always, we fully support and belong to great organizations like the Naturist Society, the American Association for Nude Recreation, Federation of Canadian Naturists, and the International Naturist Federation.


 * (3) Google results can be misleading. I am concerned about using google results to shape how things are labeled and categorized at Wikipedia. A lot of searches for nudist, naturist, public nudity will yield a lot of sexually-oriented material, even though nudists and naturists say that being naked isn't a sexualized activity. I did move Clothing-optional activities on public lands to public nudity because the first term was a bit too much even though making a page called public nudity might conjure up commerical sexually-oriented associations given internet searches. Many sex sites using nudism rather than naturism or clothes free in their meta data and web pages to draw people looking for that material to look through pictures, some or all of which are sexually oriented, and do not represent the clothes free movement, naturism, nudism, or the free beach movement. Dandelion1 21:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding issue 1 - I need to read a good definition of the difference between nudism and naturism. How much overlap and difference is there in the two?
 * Yes, I can provide this in a recent article written on the subject in N magazine. Give me a bit of time to fetch it.Dandelion1 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found out from the author Mark Storey that in fact the article has not yet been in print in N magazine (it is too long), but it was online for a while on the TNS website, however it has been pulled as he is working on it again. I might be able to get you a draft if you contact me privately. Dandelion1 08:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about sending the whole article. Can you paraphrase the basics of the difference in a few sentences?  If so, it should really be included in the article as it helps to clear up the taxonomy of the various groups and pursuits in how they overlap and diverge. --StuffOfInterest 21:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see there is some definition in the article already. My fear is still that the casual reader could be left with some ambiguity.  If time permits in the next couple of days I may play around with creating a bubble chart showing the basic premise and overlaps of the different communities.  Maybe going on the picture is worth a thousand words concept will help me and possibly others keep the issues straight. --StuffOfInterest 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the divisions are that simple. There are indeed several overlapping communities within clothing-optional culture. If I could name them here, they would be:
 * Those who are comfortable in a social nude setting, versus those who remain solo (at home alone only, or closet) nudists.
 * Those who are younger with less confidence and income, versus the traditional older, well traveled nudist.
 * Those who believe clothing should be optional, versus those who would enforce full nudity wherever appropriate.
 * Those who set up nudism as a voyeuristic business opportunity (usually selling images or access to images), versus those who are opposed to exploitation and pandering.
 * Those who enable or deny child exploitation of some type within nudism, versus those who believe it exists and are willing to be activists against it.
 * Those who spend considerable time and resources to promote the public acceptance of clothing-optional culture, versus those who do not.
 * Those who participate in activist nudist organizations, versus those who would rather remain a non-joiner for various reasons.
 * Those who fight actively for more public places for nudism, versus those who limit their support of social nudism to private places behind locked gates at nudist clubs.
 * Those who advocate aggressive grass-roots lobbying, versus those who insist all the government relations be left to professionals in private meeting.
 * Those who stay home to be nude in the home and backyard, socializing there, versus those who would travel to be nude.
 * Those who would pay to be nude, versus those who prefer not to pay for use of public places such as wilderness, beaches or parks.
 * Those who would pay to be nude, and prefer upscale resorts, versus those who would seek inexpensive nudist accomodations.
 * Those who would pay to be nude, and prefer an urban setting, versus those who would prefer a rustic setting.
 * Those who practice a religion (see skyclad) or life philosophy requiring nudity, versus those seeking nude recreation and camaraderie.
 * Those who encourage a study and return to natural ways, called "naturalists" and sometimes erroneously "naturists", versus those whose only interest is being nude outdoors, also called "naturists".
 * Those who would rather be an online visitor or even an Internet troll on a discussion forum, versus those who enjoy nudism in person.
 * Those who believe nudism should include varying amounts of open sexuality (hedonists, perhaps), versus those strongly opposed to sexualized social nudism.
 * Those who believe nudism can harmlessly include limited sexuality, such as the wearing of lingerie in a nudist resort night club, versus those who believe this is inconsistent with mainstream nudism.
 * Those who believe the less rules the better (anything goes), versus those who protect clothing-optional public places by opposing such behavior.
 * Those who argue for the open display of spontaneous erections in the name of body acceptance, versus those who support more modest nudist etiquette.
 * Those whose secondary motivation towards nudism is to seek new sex partners (swingers, or those practicing polyamory), versus those who only practice non-sexual social nudism.
 * Those who have an active interest in voyeurism, versus those who believe voyeurism is parasitical to social nudism.
 * Those who support examples of exhibitionism for personal, political or artistic reasons, versus those who prefer to be never offensive to anyone.
 * Those comfortable around children in a nudist setting, versus those who would prefer they not be present for various reasons.
 * Those who have a need for safe environments for nudist families with children, versus those who have less concern for safety.
 * And last but not least: those who would be called nudists, versus those who would prefer to be called naturists. (I personally believe this is an illusionary grouping, arising generally from overlap of the will-pay vs will-not-pay and support-public-places vs support-private-places group divisions).


 * Trouble is, most of the dichotomies listed above have two groups at odds with each other. Clothing-optional culture includes such a wide grouping of people—nudists, naturists, solo nudists, hedonists, exhibitionists, activists—some of which really can't find consensus with their counterpart. I believe any of the various participants of clothing-optional culture will tend to fall to one extreme or the other of each category, illustrating the complexity of categorizing this subject. It would be interesting to go down the list and see where the reader falls in each category. BareWire 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding issue 2 - Wikipedia strives to describe the work as it is not how it may somesday be. If "clothes free" or "clothesfree" becomes the dominant term then the article names can be rearranged later. One nice thing with Wikipedia is that names (and often facts) are not set in stone and can be revised later.

Regarding issue 3 - very true. As a semi-outsider to the whole issue I have trouble seeing the difference between nudism and naturism, and I had just barely heard of "clothes free". One article, whatever the title, needs to strive to help people understand the differences. Hopefully a few more people will join in with opinions on this. Now, back to researching if Mar Bella beach in Barcelona is a good place to plan a vacation for this summer. :) --StuffOfInterest 21:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Use of term "clothes free" to suggest ClothesFree International: As something to consider when putting things into perspective among nudist organizations, while CFI (formerly INA) may have contributed in some positive ways to the public's perception of nudism, they "generate an enormous amount of income" partly by way of offering one of the Internet's largest collections of nudist photography. From 1999 to 2003 INA's banner ad said "See Photos Of Freedom" with pictures of little kids on it. See the 2003 banner They may have revised their strategy, but regardless, I tend to discount the huge amounts of income generated by such maneuvers. Reference: Early 1999 "Photos of Freedom" page c/o the WayBack Machine Here are direct links to some of the free teaser content featured on that page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not all photos were of young nudists like these, but it is clear they will be included prominently in the collection promised to number in the thousands. Some feel feel this is exploitation and pandering, and not necessarily reflective of true nudism.
 * Re: Google results can be misleading - yes, but in this case, I lean toward acknowledging the preponderance of "nudist" and "naturist" over "clothes free" as a general term, and in my opinion "clothing-optional" seems to work even better, as it reflects the reality of nude beaches and many resorts. "Clothes free" is a term I personally refrain from using, due to the extra branding efforts CFI has been making to press the term into broader service, even with possible copyright issues notwithstanding. Google shows currently some resorts using the term "clothes free" on their websites, but very few abandon the term nudist entirely. Google link Similarly, AANR has used "nude recreation" as the umbrella term, also switching their byline recently to "the credible voice of nudism" in order to move closer to branding that term exclusively. "Naturist" suggests The Naturist Society, and rather not AANR. And this illustrates the problem: Wikipedia moves toward non-partiality. "Clothing-optional culture" is the most neutral term I can think of that isn't a part of someone's branding strategy within my knowledge. And I agree that certain terms bring bad connotations, due to the several parasitical industries that were built on the terms "nude beach", "nude celebrity", "nude gallery", "nude photos", etc. BareWire 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"movement"
I'm pretty sure that there is a large number of nudists/naturists out there that wouldn't characterize themselves as being part of a "movement," so I'm not sure if it's fair to merge them into a title that uses that name. IT seems like "movement" should be more about attempts to change things, like topfree equality, and less about historical nudism which operated under a very different philosophy. Night Gyr 16:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What specific changes are you proposing? Dandelion1 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A move to a more general title would probably be best. I'm not sure what would be best, but  "Clothes-free" just doesn't have the same connotations as the older terms. The biggest problem I think is the lumping together of many independent activities into a "movement."  Why not something like "Clothes-free activity" or "clothes-free activism" or "history of clothes-free activity" as opposed to "history of clothes-free movement" because that title implies that there is a single grand movement.  The motivations behind early nudism and modern topfree equality are so disparate that they shouldn't be lumped into a single grand movement. Night Gyr 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And what connotations does older terms as nudism have? Activism? I think generally this has not been the case, especially in the US, and especially as it relates to the free beach movement which has had a contentious relationship with organized nudism in this country. Using that term to lump everything would piss off a lot of naturists, and many others, including myself who do not affiliate and who are working hard within the movement. None of the aggressive, larger scale clothing free activities are being organized by completely (or sometimes even partially) by nudists. This would include World Naked Bike Ride (not nudist), the Freedom to be Yourself (not nudist), Painted naked cyclists of the Solstice Parade (not nudist). Free beach movement (partially nudist, partially naturist, partially neither), Bare to Breakers (partially nudist, partially naturist, partially neither). Spencer Tunick, not a nudist, his participants, majority probably not nudists. Nudist activism in the US would generally focus on defending clubs.


 * A history of clothes-free activity sound more broad than clothes free movement. "Clothes free activism" might work (but I think movement might encompass some of the quieter variations of advocacy and practice). You are right there is no single grand movement, but there is a lot of shared philosophy and approaches which I think could be lumped under a broader category. Trying to straighten all this out among separate articles "naturism", "nudism", "free beach movent", "non naturist/nudist clothes free activism" would be a total nightmare and might be near impossible and impractical given differences among movments between different countries. The current title is much better than having separate articles with similar shared content, making various claims against the other as done earlier. To me, "clothes free activity" is so broad that it could simply equate to nudity. Topfree equality is definitely in a category by itself, however news relating to the movement is often covered and supported by naturism/nudism, and other clothes free supporters, so to leave it out completely would not reflect the reality of the relationship between the two. Many prominent activists in TERA, a prominent topfree equality organization, are prominent naturists or clothes free types, such as Judy Williams, Morley Schloss and Paul Rapoport. Other clothes free activists which are also topfree activists include Debbie Moore and Terri Sue Webb. Dandelion1 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't saying to put this under nudism, since apparently that term is contentious. I think maybe what we need first is some sort of hierarchy of nakedness so we can figure out which movements go together with connections in history or philosophy and then merge them into the largest branches that make for coherent (but not bloated) articles. Night Gyr 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Hmmm... Without the terms already discussed on this page, I'm kinda drawing a blank about what to suggest. A big part of the problem is that the naturist nudist community has not agreed on a common term, each community using their own language to describe their own world. Naturists will say that many events are naturist-oriented, such as WNBR, but it is not a naturist event. The general public might think people who go naked in public are nudists, but they might not be, and the major nudist organizations may very well cringe from associating with aggressive activists. So there you have it. Its a problem. That is at least one reason why ClothesFree International changed their name (see discussion above). Dandelion1 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not put general information in Nudity (most of it seems to be there already), information specific to the modern clothes-free movement here, and information about naked people before the present day (i.e. historical nudist movements) in a history of nudity article? -- Night Gyr 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What is "modern" though? Much of the current "nudist" culture in the US, for example, is more or less following the same strategy and activities seen at the turn of the century.
 * On the other hand, the free beach movement started in the 1960s through 1980s. Really significant approaches to free beaches developed in the 1970s and 1980s that are still being tried today, so I would hate to move that to a historical article since it is so relavent.
 * The public nudity thing, in urban areas, more or less got going in the 1960s through today and is still developing.
 * A history of nudity would probably have to include "social nudity" baths, cultures, "nudity in vernacular culture" might include other things like streaking, but I don't know.
 * "clothes free movement" would probably need to include clubs, beaches, resorts, public nudity (political, recreational, artistic).
 * Could you make an outline of what you are thinking with topics?Dandelion1 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on the subject, so I can't tell you what's out there to write about, I'm just trying to throw out ideas and see what works.  As it is now, the organization is a bit of a mess with little clear demarcation of each article's domain and lots of overlapping and redundant information.  Night Gyr 14:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * actually, how about "Social nudity" as a title? It's not as limited as public nudity, and it lacks the connotations of nudism, naturism, or clothes-free (as a neologism).  Night Gyr 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting suggestion. Hmmm.... that also overlaps with nudity and clothes free movement. Thinking.... Dandelion1 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Social nudity" sounds like a cross-cultural thing, which could be independent of any movement or philosophy, even as broad as the article clothes free movement. So I would think it is best discussed on nudity, since clothes free movement suggests a political intent to foster growth and development of general freedoms in society. What do you think? Dandelion1 06:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest "culture" in place of "movement". It's much broader, and doesn't require political activism. Reference: Definitions of Culture at wikipedia, which include
 * "...a 2002 document from the United Nations agency UNESCO states that culture is the "set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs". UNESCO, 2002 "
 * So I suggest clothing-optional culture as the all-encompassing term. I'm no fan of hyphenated culture definitions but that's the best one for me. Let's hear some more input. I'll be happy to help with the editing if someone could tell me where it's needed. So to create this "hierarchy of nakedness" (nice term, Night Gyr) what do we need, an entirely new article, or to make everything existing fit some kind of logical structure like the one I've created above? BareWire 23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems much more like a culture than a movement to me. -MichaelBluejay 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

FROM KORKY DAY:

2006 April 6

Dear Wikipedia people,

I just signed up today for Wikipedia for the first time. I want to help edit because you need it so much, and I am an expert in social nudity. I have not attempted to edit anything yet.

I have been a nude activist for 36 years.

I'm uncomfortable with most or all of you being anonymous but will try to tolerate it. Here in Vancouver, BC, people know me face-to-face as Korky Day. I am about as well known as some of the people listed as prominent practitioners of social nudity.

In 1970, I led a movement which made nudism acceptable again at Ulksen Beach, better known as Wreck Beach. It is now Canada's most renowned beach--of any kind.

Nudism and naturism mean the same thing but are prefered by two somewhat different groups which should merge but which are too stubborn and foolish to do so. Those two groups are less divided in Canada than in the notoriously cantankerous USA.

The term "clothes free movement" is a poor choice for a broad category for many reasons, including some mentioned by some of you already.

Further reasons:

1. "Clothes free movement" is basically a euphemism. It's for people embarrassed to refer directly to nudity. Euphemisms are often handy when communicating with hostile authorities, but when used at other times they tend to be harmful to the self-esteem of practitioners. These terms are also euphemisms: naturism, clothing-optional, private parts, intimate parts, etc. More accurate, honest, and proud are the terms nudism; nude-optional; organs of reproduction, nurturing, and elimination; etc.

2. The term is also a misnomer. Nudists are not free of clothes. We don't advocate the elimination of clothes. I've never known a nudist who did not both possess and wear clothes frequently, although there are some such people in the wilds of the Amazon and New Guinea and maybe Berkeley. I've read about one in Florida. On the other hand, nudism is not a misnomer because it doesn't imply a lack of clothes, just a propensity for removing them. Would you call every cycling club a car-free club? No, many cyclists are also drivers.

3. One organisation may have recently adopted the term, but it has not caught on yet, and I hope it doesn't.  They should have said "social nudity" if wanting to appease naturists. Or a term I believe I coined: nude-friendly. Your best choice now is to call the category social nudity, as suggested by "Dandelion" 2006 March 23 (metric dating, which Wikipedia should use, by the way).

4. Two words such as "clothes free" are hyphenated when preceding and modifying a noun such as "movement", unhyphenated when in a sentence such as "She was clothes free."

5. As some of you argued, it's not a movement, though it includes movements.

So the solution is to replace "Clothes free movement" with "Social nudity".

One of you suggested that we need an outline for arranging all these related topics. The way it is now is a huge, confused jumble. How about this outline below? (Sorry that this Web site added the pink boxes.)

Nudity (with references in some categories below to near nudity, to exposing forbidden parts of the body, and to opposition to nudity)

I. Solo nudity (unseen by others)

II. Social nudity (non-sexualized, except generally to lessen shame of the body, its functions, and its shape; it is also intentional, voluntary, and non-commercial) A. Private places 1. At home 2. Places allowing nudity or nude-optionality (resorts, clubs, beaches, parks, ships,                       communities, etc.) B. Public places restricted to one sex C. In public (mixed sex) 1. Isolated places unlikely to be noticed 2. Places allowing nudity or nude-optionality (beaches, parks, communities, including places             established for thousands of years in traditional              societies) 3. Among people who do not generally accept or expect it--in order to emphasize points political, social religious, sexual, artistic, whimsical, etc.           a.  To amuse the nudes and/or the viewers (nude group bicycle rides, for instance) b. To shock or challenge the viewers (such as PeTA                    and, in Western Canada, the Freedomite                    Doukhobors, and, in many countries, teenagers                    showing disdain for prudish norms) III. Non-sexualized media A. Art B. Education C. News

The people advocating the above activities generally take pains to sharply distinguish themselves from the following activities.

IV. Nudity or exposure for overt sexual gratification (intentional and non-commercial) A. With consent (sex parties, for instance) B. Without consent (flashers, for instance) V. Sexualized commercial nudity (usually paying models) A. In person, such as stripping and erotic dancing. B. Reproduced (movies, photos, statues, Internet, etc.) 1. Erotica (supposedly liberating and respectful, more or less) 2. Pornography (exploiting and degrading, more or less)

Of course, sex and porn can occur without nudity.

I have tried to construct those categories above to be logical, not the artificial, arbitrary, localized, and ephemeral divisions of social movements we see at the moment. Nudists, naturists, nude-optionalists, and naked people who resists labels can all fit themselves into one or more of those categories, I expect, without too much discomfort.

One or two of you seemed to imply that naturism and naturalism can mean the same thing or similar. False. Wikipedia should state clearly in the naturism section that naturalism is the study of nature. Naturism is the practice of being in a "natural" (nude) state socially.

Sincerely, Korky Day 216.232.198.157 07:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Korky again a few minutes later. I'm new at this. I don't know why my formatting got totally messed up. Who put in those stupid pink boxes and made the column much too wide? I have no idea how to fix them.

This is Korky a third time. I experimented and found out what's happening. It seems that Wikepedia punishes people like me who properly indent our paragraphs! So I'm removing the indentations, but under protest! Maybe I should strip.

Korky again, after editing some "clothing optional" pages. For some reason, not all of the updates I submitted were credited to me, but I wasn't trying to avoid detection--it was a glitch. The updates between my first and last credited updates are all from me. Hope you like my work.

Clothist and many other good revisions addressed to Dandelion1 and others
From Korky Day:

Now I can't find my note to you, "Dandelion1". It's somewhere here in Wikipedia.

I said "clothist" could be included, even if rare. I'm not proposing it as a category or heading, so I'm merely provides more information. Is that bad?

The only error of mine that I can see now is that I failed to indicate that the AANR calls a club non-landed if it leases its land. (Very misleading to the public and to AANR members!)

You say I showed bias in favour of nudist language? Where?

To which other of my edits did you object? There are quite a few: compare 04:44, 8 April 2006 and 21:35, 7 April 2006.

Unless someone says otherwise, I'll assume the other edits are acceptable--and put them back in. How long should I wait? --KD