User:Atomaton/archive04

Portal
Dear Atomaton, Portal:Minnesota is nominated for featured portal. Every day for the past two weeks while diddling with random content I have thanked you for creating its logical structure. Thank you so much. Hope to cross paths some day soon. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way. Someday there must be a better way. To grab the leads so they are always current. And other things. But in the grand scheme of view counts this portal is down the list at the moment. If someday you are inspired to work on this again ok in advance to erase any or all of my changes. Again thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, along these lines, a category of images retrieved by number would be simpler than creating a dedicated portal page per image. Also I have a /Layout template per portal feature (one for community, one for picture, one for bio, etc.). Maybe I can merge those, I don't know yet. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)
Since you are part of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Catechism &Copyright
I am inclined to POV tag for the following reason: Your quotations do not represent the Catholic view  on s but only a small section of it. They are presented totally out of context and overemphazized. There is a second unrelated issue. The Vatican punishes copyright violations and your long quotes without any text of your own are directly taken from forbidden copyright material. Please check. I want a reasonable solution, which at the end presents the full Catholic view on this issue and thus makes everybody happy. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I would not have imagined that the Catholic Church would have a problem with it, but you may be right. Of course, in Wikipedia (and elsewhere) it is okay to quote copyrighted material as long as you correctly attribute the source; and as long as the purposes is for comment or critcism. Wholesale copying of large sections of copyrighted material, or use of material without attribution (plagiarism) is not. Quoting Copyrighted Material

"Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances." U.S. Copyright Office

Wiki article on fair use

Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text

Please, feel free to do what you feel is right with the article. I have no vested interest in the article, but only desire that it is accurate. Paraphrases of material by (well meaning) editors that inflect their personal perspectives and opinions that differ substantially fom the quoted citation is the kind of thing I have a problem with.

Atom (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it's a weird policy initiated by John Paul II and continued by the present pope. I think the particular quotations are questionable because they are long, out of context and virtually without explaining texts. They can be rewritten without violating copyright, but  this involves work. I am happy to contribute later. Like you, I have no particular view on this except a fair and balanced representation. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for the Catechism under Pope John Paul II. (Prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith).  He is, of course, now being called Pope Benedict XVI.  So I would be surprised if any policy had changed.  It is my belief that the quotes that are in this article fall within the U.S. Copyright Fair Use.  I agree that because it is not only one,  short, quote that it is arguable and that other editors could see it differently.  If you take the five or six paragraphs quoted in the context of the enormity of the entire catechism, or even just under the section on the Sixth Commandment, it is small.  Also, Wikipedia is not for profit, and the quotations not intended to generate revenue.  Also, it is clearly for comment or criticism by an organization that is research oriented.  If we start with that basis (that it almost certainly would not be found to be violating copyright law) and then add some additional text that remains faithful to the citations, I am sure we will be okay.  Atom (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, a performed a brief search, and I can't find anywhere where the Catholic Church has pursued a violation of Copyright on the Catechism. Atom (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a Wiki statement on its policy: In the instance I came accoss, the writer copied publication titles from the Copyright webpage of the person, he was writing about. The emphasis seems to be on description not quoting long sentences Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of ..... A tag has been placed on ..... requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

This is Criteria for speedy delete G12 referenced above: Blatant copyright infringement. Text pages that meet all of the following (for images and media, see I9):
 * The material was copied from another website or other source (but consider the possibility that the other copy was obtained from Wikipedia—see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks);
 * There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving;
 * The material was introduced at once by a single person; and
 * There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license

To meet the speedy delete criteria, it has to meet all three criteria:
 * 1) The material was copied from another website or other source. ( -- Yes)
 * 2) There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving.  ( -- unknown, not entirely.  Possibly some, but not necessarily accurate)
 * 3) The material was introduced at once by a single person; and   ( -- No, some of the citations were pre-existing by other editors, many were recently added oby one editor)
 * 4) There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license ( Yes, we do assert that the text is fair use. We may not use it unless we meet the terms of fair use, or get permission.  We assert fair use per below)

As one condition fails (lack of fair use clause) the speedy delete criteria fails, and it may not be speedy deleted.

We assert fair use. Per Wikipedia Copyrights policy. See Fair_use for rationale.

The potential issues in the policy are:
 * "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."
 * "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

Certainly, in this article, we are giving large quotes. In the context of the entire Catechism, the quoted text is very small. I have no doubts that it is well within the fair use requirements of US copyright law. Whether it is within the policy of the Wikipedia policy is a judgment call, and different editors would likely see it differet ways.

I will try to paraphrase some of the material, however, that makes it less accurate. Atom (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I went to try and paraphrase, and found I could not, constructively, do so. Please see Talk:Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality where I give my opinion on the discussed usage of the copyrighted material, and assert that it is for fair use. Atom (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wellstone
I saw the headstone marker with the stones on it and assumed it was a play on words. I thought I had heard something about that someplace. However, if you think it's a mistaken assumption, I'll just leave the photo and remove the speculation. P.S. Why did they put stones on the marker? I never heard of that before. Always flowers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, silly me. It's a Jewish custom. So you were right to revert it. This shows the perils of jumping to conclusions, which I don't often do in articles, but this seemed so obvious - and was so off base. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I go to cemeteries quite often. It is a common thing for people to place small stones on the headstone of their loved ones. I don't think it unique to Paul Wellstone, nor do I think it is based on his name.

The closest cemetery to my home, which I walk through often is a Jewish cemetary. I looked this up on Google Stones on Graves which seems to apply. Although I have seen this in the Fort Snelling National Cemetary as well as the Lakewood Cemetery (Where Paul Wellstone is buried).

Here is another one Why do we place pebbles on grave stones?.


 * Sounds like you knew this all along. I added a hopefully proper explanation, for ignoranimuses like me who might stumble upon either the article or the grave itself and wonder what's up with the stones. In his case, his name is just a poignant coincidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the tip on how to do those references. :-) --MonkeyTimeBoy (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with what I mentioned earlier
When you get some time, could you look at User:Appraiser/Wikipedia Panel ideas and modify/enhance it. When we're happy with it, I'll copy it and send it to the right people. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the target audience? How computer savvy are they? What is the primary focus of the event that the panel is a part of? Atom (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Paul GA Preparation
Hello,

The Saint Paul, Minnesota article is being prepared for GA Nomination ahead of the 2008 RNC and the attention the article will be receiving (and in some cases already has).

Other editors and myself have been working on the article lately and we would like to you to help. If you have additions, comments, concerns, questions or other feed back, it is all appreciated. There is a peer review already set up and detailed checklist of issues that need to be fixed is on the talk page. These items can be crossed off when completed. Feel free to add to the list and sign your username, so that we know who added it.

Any help is appreciated. Also, if you would like to work on other articles directly related to Saint Paul, especially those that link off the Saint Paul article, that would be great too.

Thanks and have a great day, Calebrw (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing sexuality
I suspect you and I may have inadvertently clashed by simultaneous edits - the log shows you deleted a quotation and its citation (thereby messing up all other references to that paper) - I am taking this absolutely dreadful article back to primary sources - which I happen to have in front of me - after it was drawn to my attention by a women's health forum. I am a member of the feminist task force here, so have a responsibility to ensure that responsible information is being conveyed. I still think that when an article is under active major editing it is better to raise any problems on the discussion page. My 2 cents. Anyway I restored the citation which is fairly pivotal. Michael. Mgoodyear (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work -- sorry to have interferred. What I thought was one edit looks to be one in a serious of edits. My apologies. I will take a quick look thrie for typos after you complete. Atom (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

'Homophobia Article
Hey, As you know, you reverted my edits to the homophobia page. And most of them were my opinion, so yeah change back its fine. But one wasn't and I changed it back to the correct facts.

Sincerely Yours, Daniel 24.5.159.169 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Daniel: Sorry to step on your toes. I see your point about the one item. Regards to you, Atom (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, but thanks, considering my other editing, I do not think you were steping on my toes, or being to harsh, but thanks again. 24.5.159.169 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bukkake reversion
It seems you keep reverting a specific bit on the page for bukkake: "The use of ejaculation is part of a humiliation ritual and generally does not involve any of the female characters experiencing orgasm." I have changed it to reflect that this sentence is not NPOV, it is the opinion of one person. What is your objection to the phrase "the people claim that..." or "it is claimed that"? Is it widely agreed upon that ejaculation is part of a humiliation ritual? If you could prove that to be the case, you could remove the qualifier. Until then, please stop.Conical Johnson (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review wp:NPOV. The quote is not neutral, it is one point of view, and cited accurately. Per WP:NPOS, other significant views are allowed in the article also. Any other viewpoints that you would like to add to the article to balance it more are welcome, as long as they have citations from reliable sources. The point of NPOV is not that all pertinent in a mterial are neutral, it is that all viewpoints are allows, not only one point of view. Thanks, Atom (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead picture in Dildo article
Why do you want to lead image in the Dildo article to be the default size? What's wrong with shrinking it down to fit the page? Asarelah (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi: Sorry, I hope I did not step on your toes. The image is large, I agree. Someone should resize the image and upload it again. On wikipedia we want all images in an article to be the default size if possible. There are sometimes special cases where this is not done. (This may be one of them.) Please see my comment Here. And the Policy Image_use_policy "Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style)." Atom (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sod it!
Hi Atomaton, I really appreciate that you have done excellent research on the matter you edited. However, I'm quite happy to cite LSJ, BDAG and other works to the effect that malakoi and arsenokoitai both normally refered to homosexuality in the first century. Pusti malaka is a common modern Greek collocation for "faggot wanker", admittedly modern malaka is "wanker" not "faggot", and I'm unclear of the precise etymology; but, nonetheless, malakoi in Koine usage seems to be the term of broader reference to homosexuality, where arsenokoitai is literally "sleeping with men", hence "buggery" as you quite rightly suggest. Personally, I think buggery is strongly implied by arsenokoitai, perhaps more strongly than our own euphemism "to sleep with", but I think we need a reliable source to say this for us, if we are to refine the text the way you propose. Leaving it at the more blurry homosexuality seems sufficient for the context in the article, without needing to argue about just precisely how explicit this is, would you agree? You may well be right, but it's just going to need more evidence to pursuade me. But bring it on! It's a little more exciting and fun than my usual explorations in ancient languages. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, your interpretation is very interesting, and I plan on looking into this further, as it is intellectually interesting for me as well. I am opposed on Wikipedia to us trying to interpret for others.  I am happy to discuss this kind of thing here, but the article should give just the facts.  Many versions of the bible exist, and we have to assume that biblical scholars have considered many of the things that you say.  Yet, most interpetations do not use the word homosexuality (a few do).  As there is no agreement by bilbical scholars, and the "homosexual intercourse" is even a broader intepretation of that minority viewpoint, I feel it is best to not interpret, but keep faithful to the original.  As most biblical scholars call it "sodomites", or "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," we can try to edit and interpret that to make it briefer in the WIkipedia article, but trying to say that it means homosexual intercourse is interpretation.  Each reader should interpret according to their own faith.  If we were to let it say that 1st Corinthians 6:9 was talking about "Homosexual Intercourse", or even "Homosexuality" then we would be taking one perspective on a spectrum, and a minority perspective at that.  Although it would make the section clumsy, we could give the original Greek, and then have a paragraph that gave a neutral POV of saying that it is variously intepreted by Biblical scholars to mean A, or B, or C, or D.  (Homosexual intercourse being one of those.  But we would need further references to support that statement too.)  The interpretation that Paul forbids Homsexuality may be your interpreation (certainly there are those that advocate that) but I don;t interpret it that way (and many others do not interpret it that way also).  We just can't say that if it is only one viewpoint. (whether one deems that viewpoint to be a minority, or majhority viewpoint, it makes no difference).  Hence, my recommendation to go back to the original and let people interpret for themselves.


 * "arsenokoitai" is only used twice in the bible, and so there is little evidence to determine the context. You suggest that it was interpreted in other 1st cebtury texts to clearly mean "sleeping with men" but I don't think that is correct. Pederast of Sodomite are other popular interpretations of that, and at that time, sodomy did not mean male to male anal sex, it mean't idolatry and beatiality.  Literally some interpret that to mean "Male-beds", which gives little insight.  Used in context with malakai (Lieterally: "soft", many interpret it to be related to idolatry, and male temple prostitutes as part of that idolatry.  Could this mean that Paul is critical of idolatry?  That is hard to say.  Atom (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You raise all sorts of interesting interpretative questions. Lots of these things are discussed in the literature. But the fact remains that all Bible versions are interpretations, the plainest meaning of the originals is indeed the appropriate one to give, and the plain meaning is the one I have supplied. Please do check the references I have supplied, they are the standard academic reference works for Greek literature generally (LSJ), and early Christian literature specifically (BDAG). The meaning of the words is not controversial, their sense in context and their relevance in different cultural settings etc. etc. are the controversial aspects.
 * I've got to say, though, you've done extremely well in seeking to check these things. You will find, however, that things are precisely the way I say they are. Time is too precious to waste trying to deceive people when there are easily accessible sources that establish the facts. I can be playful, but not that playful. Best. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. As a courtesy, and curiosity, I will check your cites in more detail.  I don't agree with you that the "plainest" interpretation is the one that should be used.  If it is controversial or debatable in meaning, then per WP:NPOV alternative meanings should be given.  The alternative to that is to do no interpretation, and supply the original word and let readers decide.  If you debate that "sodomy" or "sodomites" should be used, then perhaps we can agree on another interpretation (most used by bible interpreations) or the original Greek.  But, I wholly disagree that the interpretation of the word is not controversial.  You may mean that the literal translation is not controversial.  The meaning at the time (sense in context and their relevance in different cultural settings) is controversial, and is the point of the citation in Wikipedia.  It boils down to, in this case (not generic biblical interpretation) the question of "What did Paul mean when he wrote the letter to the Corinthians?"  The current day answer is "We aren't really sure, it is open to many interpretations".  If you asked a spectrum of biblical scholars, they would not agree with one another.  The reason there are many different bibles with different text interpreations indicates that biblical scholars at the time those bibles were interpreted did not read it the same way.
 * Back to Wikipedia. Since religious leaders from many different Christian sects, biblical scholars today, and biblical scholars who write the various versions of the bible do not agree on the meaning, and in fact few of them interpret the meaning to be "homosexual intercourse", we can't say in Wikipedia that it means that.  I'm open to finding compromise, or finding a balanced view, but not to quoting only the most conservative (minority) viewpoint in the article.Atom (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy about the verse, "Jesus' wept."
 * There is little controversy about the literal meaning of pretty much all of the Bible bar a few rare words.
 * There's a ton of controversy regarding "truth", "accuracy", "relevance", "morality", etc.
 * Conservative religious minorities don't write dictionaries of ancient languages that last hundreds of years and continue as academic standards through dozens of revisions. Those dictionaries, not "conservative conspiracies" determine the meaning of words in ancient language usage. I was a student of ancient languages before I became a Christian. I find it offensive to have it implied that I might have some conservative agenda. If that is so, just precisely what agenda might that be? State it simply and concisely.
 * Nope, we're simply defining the meanings of words, sodomy is an English word with an obvious derivation and usage history which you can find in OED. The Greek words are just as clear, the equivalents to the OED for Greek are the works I've mentioned.
 * For a host of reasons, many individual scholars and tiny groups speculate about possible alternatives that suit their various agendas. It's usually easy to pick. It's only in the last couple of decades that people have seriously proposed certain kinds of interpretations. And good for them, but their agendas are obvious. The Bible is plainly anti-gay in the few places it speaks about it. However, so what? Most people don't care what the Bible says, it was written a long time ago. The article we're talking about is not about homosexuality.
 * The earliest copy of 1 Corinthians that we have was probably created about a hundred years after the letter was written. There are even some pictures of it online. We have so many copies of documents other than the NT from the same era that the Greek language is extremely well known.
 * But I'm fascinated by what you are trying to say. You seem so certain one word absolutely must be translated sodomy, and then you suggest sodomy has unclear meaning. I really don't know where you're getting this from. Sodomites is indeed a good translation of arsenokoitai, because they both mean "male homosexual intercourse".
 * Anyway, don't take it from me, I'm only quoting OED, LSJ, BDAG, take it from them.
 * It's over to you from here. Thanks for the chat. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First let me assure you that I mean no disrepect in disagreeing with you. I claim no "conservative conspiracy", nor do I suggest that you have a "conservative agenda".  I was pointng out that your viewpoint mirrors conservative viewpoints, not trying to be insulting by calling you conservative.  The tone of a conversation is always lost online.  I feel certain that you are better learned in languages and biblical history than myself.


 * As for first Corinthians, it really is not that important. The article is on Virginity, so the point is not an important one.  Wikipedia should not be mis-used though.  It should not be used as a platform for discrimination.  The references in the bible against sodomites, and then the common misunderstanding that many people have that Sodomy means anal sex, when in fact it doesn't, and then they extrapolate that to think that the bible is against homosexuality because they think the bible is against anal sex.  The flaws in that are first that sodomy is a general term for immoral or bad behavior, and has been used historically to mean heresy, or any kind of dissonance with the church, especially sexual misconduct, including bestiality, oral sex, or any kind of "deviant" sexual expression.  Although it has narrowed in usage over the years, even now the standing legal definition of sodomy included heterosexual oral sex and bestiality, in addition to anal sex (and not just male-male anal sex).  Nearly every jurisdiction has a slightly different meaning.  The second issue is that homosexuality has nothing to do with anal sex.  Yes, some homosexuals have anal sex.  But then more anal sex is performed by heterosexuals than by homosexuals.  Homosexuality is about a genetic predisposition to prefere a bonding long term relationships with someone of the same gender.


 * I don't insist on using the word "sodomy", in fact what I said was "I'm open to finding compromise, or finding a balanced view, but not to quoting only the most conservative (minority) viewpoint in the article."


 * You have to wonder why, if arsenokoitai means male-male anal sex, that so many long-standing and respected biblical interpretations instead describe it as other things. For instance, the Catholic bible (Catholicism having more adherents than all other christian sects combined) used this language "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites" (New American Bible).  The Eastern Orthodox Bible uses the term "abusers of themselves with mankind".  The KJV and the American Standard Bible and the Darby bible use that term also.  Yes, I know that the Catholic church is against homosexuality, but not because of 1 Corinthians.


 * The basis for our misunderstanding is a difference in understanding the meaning of the words. For instance, you obviously feel that sodomy means anal sex, when it has amuch more rich history than that.  The sin of the sodomites was not anal sex, or even male rape.  You say that arsenokoitai means male-male anal sex, when there is no agreement about that.  Even the definition of Koitai is disputed as bed, or couch, or semen, or coitus (intercourse).  I am still looking into your refeences.

Atom (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think you're disagreeing with me, I'm not sure I've told you much about what I think. I've only told you what the sources say. I've also pointed out that I'm not aware of there being any "conservative agenda" here. I think you are concerned that there might be a conservative agenda, without really knowing just what that might be.
 * The etymology of arsenokoitai is not disputed, it is a compound of "masculine body" and "bed", draw your own conclusions. The use of malakoi (literally "soft", just as you say) to refer to homosexuals is well established from various ancient writings. Just precisely how this metaphorical usage arose has probably been speculated upon by several writers, but the end result is not in doubt, it worked as a euphemism for male homosexuality, not too dissimilar to our own word "gay".
 * I am personally very interested in how ancient societies perceived homosexuality, because it reveals their assumptions regarding the dynamics of gender in human interactions. For example, "soft" is suggestive of stereotypical ideals of femininity, so attributing "softness" to homosexual men could be evidence that they were viewed as being more feminine men, whatever that means.
 * Over the last fifty years a lot of study has gone into human sexuality on concrete biological grounds, not just into consideration of language usage. Some studies have suggested that homosexual men may show brain structures intermediate between those of typical heterosexual men and women. Some of these studies have been challenged. It is also possible for the brain to adapt to its environment, despite taking most of its shape from prenatal and pubertal biological processes.
 * So, not only is there incomplete and ambiguous material regarding language related to homosexuality, the scientific research is also incomplete. However, modern medical language has evolved, and continues to evolve as more things become clear.
 * But the bottom line is that people feel strong ethical questions are at stake. Ethics is not like science. Murder might be wrong, but no experiment can show this. Ultimately, most people agree murder is wrong, and essentially that's how practical ethics works. For those who believe in God, and in the Bible as including God's words on right and wrong, the ethics is often clearer, but there are standard deconstructions of any form of biblical morality.
 * I don't understand homosexuality enough to have an opinion on it. I have my guesses. I know which authors I'd be most interested to read on the subject—Milton Diamond, for example—but it's mainly of interest to me in so far as historical perceptions regarding it involve appeal to the "naturalness" of the masculine-feminine duality—yin and yang if you like.
 * If you're interested in the broader topic of gender, there is now a good deal of sourced material in that article. You will also note that it doesn't really address matters of morality, just science and documented history of language. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals on Template talk:Sexual orientation
Hi, you've contributed to past discussions on the Template talk:Sexual orientation page and we are now in the process of noting which of several proposals might help resolve some current content disputes. Your opinion to offer Support, Oppose, and Comment could help us see if there is consensus to approve any of these proposals. It's been suggested to only offer a Support on the one proposal you most favor but it's obviously to each editor's discretion to decide what works for them. Banj e b oi   23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar, (though I think you're supposed to post them on discussion pages and let editors move them to their user page if they feel like it). I think you deserve a barnstar as much as any of us, not least for trying to raise our morale in this way. It's quite a big Wikiproject but I think the constant drip drip of vandalism wears people down. Thank you again and well done. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, I got one of these from you Atom! I will probably not put it on the userpage just because I don't want to seem vain :) It's pretty cluttered anyway. I'll keep it in my talk archives though, thanks :) Tyciol (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you as well. Not that I've been at all active with this account recently, but maybe I can get involved at a later date. forestPIG(grunt) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you
Thanks for the barnstar; that's very kind of you. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dueling barnstars!
I think you should give Mgoodyear another barnstar! The one I gave was for the work on Female ejaculation; if you want to give another for something else, the sky is the limit. :) Whatever404 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Atomaton! Thanks for joining the Feminism Task Force! Happy editing! -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 02:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisions to Homosexuality
I admit, I made a test edit. I was putting that all togeather, and saved it before I had copyedited it. Could you support me in installing these facts somewhere into the article?

Homosexuality and Parasites
Concerning the issue of homosexuality and parasites, &#97;&#110;&#97;&#108; &#115;&#101;&#120; can be an important risk factor for intestinal parasitism.

In 2006, the The Medical Journal of Australia reported the following: High rates of intestinal parasitism are found in MSM [men who have sex with men] throughout the world.

Amoebiasis has become endemic in MSM in Japan and causes significant morbidity and mortality; complications such as colitis and liver abscesses occur more frequently in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men. Similar findings on amoebiasis are reported from Taiwan, with MSM at increased risk for invasive amoebiasis and intestinal colonisation with E. histolytica.

In 2001, The journal Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) published an article entitled Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in which they stated the following the following: While the overall prevalence of amebiasis is approximately 4% in the United States, certain high-risk groups have a much higher incidence of infection and disease. Prevalence of E. historylitica or E. dispar in the gay population of New York City and San Francisco approached 40-50%. Some Japanese literature also showed homosexual contact was an important risk factor for amebic infection.

In 1990 SD Wexner wrote in a article published in Diseases of the Colon and Rectum that mentioned the subject of homosexuality and parasites and the abstract for that article states: "....a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population."

In 1985, the peer reviewed medical journal Gut, which is an international medical journal for gastroenterology & hepatology, had an article entitled The Gay Bowel  authored by I V Weller which stated the following: "Guardia lamblia and Entamoeba histolytica have long been regarded as 'exotic' organisms, but are 'hyperendemic' among gay men attending STD clinics with up to 20 excreting cysts."

A 1980 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated the following in its abstract: "In a controlled study 67.5% of 200 homosexual men but only sixteen percent of 100 heterosexual men were found to be infected with intestinal parasites"...These findings suggest that the male homosexual community may be an important reservoir of potentially pathogenic protozoa."

Higher Rates of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and Amebiases Elaborated
Sexually transmitted diseases that cause proctitis include syphilis, gonorrhea, lymphogranuloma venereum, and amebiasis and as noted earlier the homosexual community has significant problems in regards to these illnesses. In addition, as mentioned earlier proctitis significant risk factor in respect to HIV infection. According to the Mayo Clinic, "proctitis in general mainly affects adult males". Proctitis, syphilis, gonorrhea, lymphogranuloma venereum, and amebiasis are all maladies that are associated with gay bowel syndrome which why John G. Bartlett, M.D. stated at the Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website and at Medscape that gay bowel syndrome is still currently an issue.

CindyAbout /T/P/C/ 05:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A (belated) welcome back!
It is good to see you back! Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I see you have been busy on the Whitewater State Park article -- one of my favorite parks in MN! I haven't been there since the flooding though. Atom (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good! Feel free to expand it-- my sources are somewhat limited.  Kablammo (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Signature
Can you try to figure out why all my postings appear as if I have not signed them (they appear as black text, not blue like everybody else's) although I add the four tildes (or use the signature square above the editing square). --Mycomp 03:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it (my raw signature box was checked in the Preferences.Mycomp (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Florian Pittis article
Hi, I provided 4 refereences that he was a "heavy" smoker (both the Romanian original and the English translations are on the article's discussion page, here are the English translations only): "Pittis was smoking heavily Carpati without filter..."; "Florian Pittis-the prophet of the blue jeans generation, having as a distinctive element the smoke of Carpati [cigarettes]"; "Pittis means long hair, blue jeans, Carpati cigarettes, and rock"; "You have to wonder when you look at Pittis smoking filterless Carpati, a passionate/ardent smoker, he does not put on airs with his cigarette, rather he squeezes it of its each and every molecule of nicotine."? Because DanaEn, and now also another user, still delete the "heavy" part saying it can't be proved? Just as a comparison, in the articles about George Harrison, Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Burton, etc. they are called "heavy" smokers without any reference at all, and I provided 4. Is this fair? --Mycomp (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you supply the references in Wikipedia format? Let's work that out first, and then add them to the end of your sentence, and then when you change it to include "heavy" they won't be able to harass you any longer. They are being too picky. Yes, citations are nice. An article should avoid original research, and technically every statement should be cited. But, in Wikipedia there are so many statements in so many articles that are not cited and no one quibled about them. In a biography of a living person article, people are very picky about every potentially negative statement. But, in this case, the person is no longer living, and they are applying the same level of scrutiny. Anyway, if you give me a link our information about your four sources, I can put them in Wikipedia format if you have trouble with that. Atom (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I am not sure how to put in the references in Wikipedia format, but here is the link:
 * (http://agenda.liternet.ro/articol/5378/Cristian-Geambasu/Mostenirea-lui-Pittis.html) that says "Pittis fuma la greu la Carpati-fara..." (Pittis was smoking heavily Carpati without filter...) written by the journalist Cristian Geambasu in the newspaper Gazeta Sportului in August 2007.;


 * a site dedicated to Pittis on his own radiostation (http://www.radio3net.ro/florian-pittis/3) reviewed in Jurnalul National of Sept. 1, 2007 (http://www.jurnalul.ro/articole/101213/radio3net-este-si-va-fi-un-radio-cu-mot) says "Florian Pittiş - Profetul generaţiei in blue-jeans", ca element distinctiv se găseşte fumul de Carpaţi." (Florian Pittis-the prophet of the blue jeans generation, having as a distinctive element the smoke of Carpati [cigarettes]";


 * then, this site (http://www.evz.ro/articole/detalii-articol/407430/quotPittis-inseamna-plete-blugi-tigari-Carpati-si-rockquot/) says "Pittis inseamna plete, blugi, tigari Carpati si rock" (Pittis means long hair, blue jeans, Carpati cigarettes, and rock) in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentul Zilei of August 13, 2006.


 * One more site (the one where the first sentence goes "You have to wonder when you look at Pittis smoking filterless Carpati, a passionate/ardent smoker, he does not put on airs with his cigarette, rather he squeezes it of its each and every molecule of nicotine.") is already at the end of the sentence about his smoking. So, I think this proves the case not only that he was a smoker, but that he was a "heavy" smoker.But somebody keeps deleting the "heavy" part all the time. --Mycomp (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please?
The use of "Please?" as indicated on the Please article is used as an abbreviated response to ask for something to be repeated.

It comes from the word Bitte, but does not illustrate the same use. In Cincinnati when 2 parties (people) are in conversation and one mishears the other, a common response is "Please?" note the ?. The word like much of English comes from German yes, but is used in a entirely different manner.

This is not the same as a simple translation, but a whole meaning and usage of the word. Though Bitte translates into Please, the use of Please? is in a whole other world.

This form of please which is "Please?" is used the same way as "Pardon?," "Beg Pardon," "Sorry?" "I'm Sorry?" "Excuse me?" "cuse me?" or "cus me"

All of those words are associated with polite responses, mostly as a way of requesting something or indicating that your apologizing but the use of ? changed their meaning.

They're somewhat lazy and abbreviated responses that a person might say to indicate they misunderstood, and wish for you to repeat what you said.

Instead of taking the time to say "I'm sorry, could you repeat that?" a person might respond with "Sorry?" or the less lazy "I'm sorry?" Yami (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation. I live in Minnesota.  Most of the people from Minnesota are German Immigrants (38% of the population), much like Ohio.  I was in New Ulm Minnesota two weeks ago, and eating lunch with a client at the Kaiserhoff restaurant, and the bartendress send "Please?" to a fellow at the bar, indicating that he should repeat himself.  New Ulm was one of the locations where German prisoners of war were kept during WW II there were 21 of those camps in Minnesota.  Of course, in German "Bitte?" can mean a variety of things...  Bitte Schon, Bitte Sehr, etc.  It is often used to mean "could you repeat that?" When posed as a question. I took two years of German in College.  My family originally game from Cleveland (again, mostly german immigrants), before arriving there from other places(including Germany).  So, when I hear a statement like "Please? Means Could you repeat yourself, in Cincinnatti", I just am amused.  It is used that way in many, many places where German is and was spoken, not just Cincinatti.  Perhaps it is used much more frequently in Cincinatti?  I don't hear it used that often here.


 * Cincinnati has a strong german history, more that most places in Ohio, with a strong community in the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood.


 * One of the interesting speech/language idiosyncracies here is that people will say something like, "Hey, I am going to the store. Do you want to go with?"  Which is directly taken from the German language also.  Atom (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well its leading to a bit of a problem on the Cincinnati article's talk page. I already explain all that and then some and the person(s) involved keep arguing. Although i think its something the article needs i'm not going drag this out much longer. Yami (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Ha, thanks for this. It made a big difference.  Grsz  talk  12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your constructive approach to this issue. I have created a separate section (see talk). Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peace to you! Sorry to have stepped on your toes. Atom (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Atom, I appreciate your comments - can we take it to Palin/talk? I see your view but I think ultimately I come down on "nonsequitur," unless we can cite her view of the Platform.  But let's discuss there.  Kaisershatner (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Atom, I replied at talk prior to your comment. The gist is that I think the fact "the electorate is uninformed about her views on creationism" may be true but is unrelated to Palin's biography.  Kaisershatner (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have done that. Atom (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NB I am still totally against the existence of this section, and I think the clumsiness of the section titles reflects the strangeness of it. The first half is biographical information- where she went to church and what religion she is.  The second half, to a large degree, is political positions (influenced by her religion).  For example, I'm guessing you would'nt want a subsection (Foreign policy views based on her religion, Social policy views based on her religion).  Especially for someone like her, I expect all of her views are influenced by her religion.  So why not just put that para into political positions: view on education.  Something like that.  Kaisershatner (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)  PS further note you owe me some comments at talk.  :) Kaisershatner (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * People with some agenda seem to find a comment in other sections, and want to go into detail about her religion and religious views. Especially when her Pentacosatlism is mentoned in the personal section.  If we don;t provide a place, they will put it there.  We can reorganizae the section, but the purpose is for the needs of people who do want to go into detail about her religious upbrining and viewpoints.  It is true that many things could be influenced by her religion and religious perspective, but they don't belong in the article unless she connects them herself with some quote.  Wtahc, someone will remove the section, and all of that stuff will get dumped into the personal section again.  Atom (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  Grsz  talk  19:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved in an edit war. SOmeone removed a substantial amount of material that I wpent hours negotiating with many other people (see the extensive entried on the talk page about this) and one editor decided to remove it after discussing it with one other editor (while I was away eating lunch). I don;t appraicte your 3RR warning when it is clear that I have not violated 3RR, and that these changes were discussed and worked out prior to the changes. Atom (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter what is or isn't worked out. If you add stuff multiple times after it's removed, it's an edit war.  Grsz  talk  20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not "add multiple stuff". If you look carefully, you will see an editor removed a section that I worked out with other editors, and has been there since we worked that our successlly late last night.  After he removed it there were a number of edits by otehr editors.  I then replaced the material, which took two edits to do -- both edits of very different material.  Enforcing a standing consensus over removal by one editor is not an edit war.  You will note that after I did that I went to the talk page and left comments about it, making no further edits.  That is not what I would call 3RR.  That is called WP:BRD.  Atom (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

your survey
Atom, you're going to kill me, but your survey is not written fairly (you include rebuttals to the objections but not to your own point). And your summary "we should allow people to express Palin's religious views" is something I agree with, but I still object to having a separate section. Kaisershatner (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect that you have a differing opinion. I can see both sides, but lean more towards free speech.  Now that some of that material is expressed in the personal section I feel somewhat better -- I think if anyone tries to add anything more someone will object and call it off topic, as the section is not about religion.  *shrugs*  I've gained respect for you and a few other people, and unfortunately, lost respect for a few people as well.  Even if we disagree on some minor thing like this, it is good to know that there are other fair minded people on Wikipedia.  I asked for an impartial admin to make an evalation fo the survey.  After that, I will leave the article for some time.  I have so many pressing things outside of Wikipedia to attend to.  Atom (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, to your point. Perhaps I rebutted to much.  My apologies. But, I don't think I neglected my own points.  Did I?  I will go take a look.  (but won't be responding, I have had enough of the article for now.)  Best to you, Atom (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image movement within Sarah Palin
I have noticed that you have repeatedly moved the image located within Sarah Palin in a manner that violates Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Most specifically, you have moved the image so that everyone in the image is "facing away" from the article text. For more information on proper image placement please see MOS:IMAGES and Accessibility. --Allen3 talk 22:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? What are you talking about? Could you indicate a diff? To my knowledge, I have not once touched any image in the article. I have replaced text that was removed from that section at one point, but have not moved any image in any way. Atom (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see for an example. --Allen3 talk 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for the example. It looks to me like the image is left aligned in both cases, the changes are some sections moved around.  I haven't, even once, changed an image or its proprtties in this article.  If someone has been doing that, feel free to just change it back to the MOS.  I will help you keep a watch out for that.  Atom (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok to Correct?
Would you mind minor spelling corrections?? ie..."leaders" into "lead" somewhere in your response today. I choose lead as an example because that is exactly what you are doing--leading. Please feel free to let me know regarding important discussions since my travel/work schedule is erratic. I try to stay abreast of the different threads but it is very time consuming, as you must know. Feel free to delete.
 * My focus is on the visitors right to know. *
 * American voters have always placed an importance in the religious views and leanings of candidates for the highest office.
 * It is a safe assumption that high ranking officials from both parties are editing this article. Neither side will allow it to lean to far left or too far right.
 * ..some say follow the money. For this article the adage should be, Follow the picture.--Buster7 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Minneapolis Meetups
Town Hall Brewery maps.google.com 1430 Washington Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55454 (612) 339-8696 October 11, 2008 Saturday at 12:00 noon (midday) Meetup RSVP

Muddy Waters maps.google.com 2401 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55405 (612) 872-2232 October 10, 2008 Friday at 10:00 PM (at night) Alternate meetup RSVP

Hope you can make it. Feel free to pass along these invitations. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ejaculation article
Re: your comment in the RfC (talk - ejaculation) Atom - we are trying to reach a compromise here, your comments are liable to polarise it again - you should be familiar with this discussion, and you should realise the policy abuse that is going on in it - I simply do not see what this has to do in the slightest with censorship. From reading your previous posts in this discussion you appear reasonable. Comments should be kept brief in the RfC if possible, yours are rather long, please abreviate (I have had to change the intro text to emphasise this, if others follow you we will have a RfC a mile long - with little else but WP is not censored in it). The purpose of an RfC is not to try and pre-empt what others may say either, or influence those who have yet to comment. Please remove your "thoughts" and simply state your opinion. It was suggested very early on (and wisely) in this discussion to avoid emotive and inflamatory words like censorship. There is a substanial number of contributors who have already suggested an inline link, as you should know. Please note this RfC has been requested - I don't care who responds as long as they know the history of the dispute here. Thanks DMSBel (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are also quoting from a REJECTED Proposal - look at the top of its page. This is going to confuse people even more. Please remove this from your comment ASAP, and all quotes from it. I will have to draw attention to this in the RfC, until you do - sorry no other option.DMSBel (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Friend, read those proposals and you see many people talking about the same things that you have. Yet the proposal to censor content like you are proposing was rejected then. Why do you think people should ignore the policy on WIkipedia to NOT censor in this one special case?

I think the issue is that perhaps you mis-identify anything that is sexual with pornography. Images and video's of the human body and bodily functions are not pornography. Atom (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your comment on my user talk page: As you will see there are several editors who wish it either removed or behind a link, so this is not a case as you suggest of just myself - I see you have not read through the recent talk, In favour of an Inline Link are Apatcher, myself and I shall now go back to the archives and I suggest you do aswell to see the others who have suggested this in the past.DMSBel (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page Atom, I have replied to them there.DMSBel (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs)

Thankyou Atom for your words of encouragement. I realise my replies may have been abrupt at times. I do not wish you to be of the opinion that I do not value your input. Thankyou for your courtesy in dealing with this newcomer. I admit my tendency at times can be to "lock horns", so to speak :-) Although in the current dispute I was "grilled" almost immediately about my change to the ejaculation page, and was not seeking to lock-horns with anyone. One thing as a newcomer here I suspect though is that I am not so immersed in wikipedia as some, though I have been over the last few days i'll admit. I actually see immersion in wikipedia being detrimental to my ability to edit effectively. It is possible to become caught in a loop, if you follow me. Wikipedia becomes "the standard" by which wikipedia is judged. Although some might scoff I regard Britannica as the best encyclopedia, I think it unlikely to ever be bettered. There is a growing number of professional looking articles on wikipedia though and a lot of work has gone into some of them. Some subjects lend themselves to that more easily than others, ie controversial subjects can be difficult to edit. I do not want wikipedia to become a joke. The sexuality section can be taxing to say the least. Quite frankly I do not see the need for much of the content and the articles in it, and some of it really does lower the tone of wikipedia. A break becomes neccessary, not just because editing takes a fair amount of energy. Sourcing material itself takes time, then if there is a dispute one has to try and resolve that. You know all this of course. It is interesting though. I have learnt some things over the dispute about the video, and realise now I really needed to step back for a bit (as DMacks said). Initially I would have hoped to have the video removed without a link. I now would settle for an INLINE LINK. I hope a compromise can be reached for I find the debating over the video a unneeded distraction from work on the article. I do appreciate that you have been polite even though we have not agreed on the content of the article. I wish you all the best with your editing.DMSBel (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Anus,_human_female. there are many unepilated pictures. please use one of these. I mean use a unepilated & natural image Instead of artificial image and no need cancer or canker is in image. Is cancer or canker in "natural human male anus" image? I prefer a "natural female anus" image is beside on "natural male anus" image. Is this a bad idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.142.71 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Image of Penis Article
What do you think about changing opening picture of the Penis article? Your opinion needed. Thanks! Yestadae (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Penis
I think I did you one better. Regards, Drmies (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow -- great reference -- good work! Atom (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Orgasm sychronisation: References or Research
I am sorry I cannot supply any references or research, it is just what occured to me while reading the article. Kingy112 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anal Sex
I welcome your contributions as long as they have reliable sourcing. The term "sodomy" is not in the bible actually, it's a Roman legal term it seems. The term "sodomite" in the KJV OT has been translated to "shrine prostitute" in newer versions. See Sodomy. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Actually it may be Church Latin circa 1300AD. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be ok to move this thread to the article talk page and continue there? This seems to be of general interest. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I was going to suggest the same thing. If there is a difference in viewpoints, we should ask other editors. Neither of us desires conflict. Atom (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Final comment on Talk:BDSM emblem
In case you care, here's my final reply on Talk:BDSM_emblem (since the page was deleted about two minutes after I added it): -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand now that you have your pet theory about an alternative "sequence of events", but unfortunately this does not really seem to be supported by the Google Groups archive of alt.sex.bondage and soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm (or my personal memories of reading the Usenet BDSM groups during a significant part of the 1990s). If you were attending BDSM events in person during the second half of the 1990s (which I wasn't), and are able to provide significant evidence from your memories of them, then that might be be interesting to hear, but so far you haven't provided any real meaningful specifics of that nature. And if you are proposing that something other than Quagmyr's metallic-with-holes-etc. is the "real BDSM symbol", then you really need to be able to point to something specific and concrete other than File:BDSM_logo.svg as an example (because I'm extremely familiar with the details of the origin of that image). It would certainly be desirable if the article were to devote less space (in proportion) to controversies and disputes, but I don't see how your proposed changes are very constructive towards reaching that goal... By the way, Quagmyr's stated terms of use for his emblem are pretty much the same as a CC-BY-NC licence (long before the CC-BY-NC licence existed). AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for giving me your comments -- yes I am interested. I'm not sure what your vested interest in this is.  I had thought you might be Quagmyr using another Pseudonym, but then you said otherwise.  I don't have anything to prove, but offer my "theory" as you call it as explanation.  I don't think there is much documented in ssbb or asb.  I offered it only as an effort to help others understand the nature of the issue, not to prove anything.  I have no negative feelings about Quagmyr, as I ha ve never met him.  If he wants to make money off of his ideas, or his jewelry, then more power to him.


 * Regarding the BDSM-Emblem, setting everything aside so that we can start anew, is that we should wait a bit and then see if we can craft a decent article about the topic (and not about other things.) The BDSM-Emblem is in the public domain, and is not owned by anyone.  I think it may be a range of similar images, all basically not distinct enough to copyright.  So there may not be any "Real BDSM symbol".  The Emblem that Quagmyr claims is the BDSM emblem (the one he claims copyright on) is not the BDSM Emblem.  I think we should put into the article what we can document, and not speculation.


 * I feel my proposed changes were constructive. I said that we should display the original image (if we can identify and document that.)  As it was primarily jewelry, and not widespread on the Internet, that may be difficult to document. We should discuss the origins of the emblem, and the originator.  The description of inspiration from the "Story of O" ought to be in it IMO.  The originator of the idea that there could be an BDSM Emblem should be credited.  I think even if the original image was not distinct enough to copyright, that the artist should be credited.  I think Quagmyr should be credited for both roles based on what we can document.  Perhaps we can mention that another version of the emblem, copyrighted, is also proposed for the BDSM Emblem.  That might be better left out to avoid controversy continuing.


 * Quagmyr's term of use for his emblem seem fair enough to me. The first problem is that it really isn't the original image, but a revision of his original design.  The circumstances are unfortunate.  It is possible though that if his original design had been copyrighted, that it would have not gained acceptance in the community. (The leather flag is not copyrighted)  Perhaps people in the community, sensitive about control and power exchange issues, resent one person controlling, and profiting from, what they began to feel was a community emblem.  This is speculation that should not be in the article unless we find a reliable source and cite.  Atom (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)