User talk:Coupleabc

Female ejaculation stuff
Hi, Coupleabc. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 90 and this discussion at Talk:Female ejaculation. Because of what I stated there, I reverted you on this addition you made to the Female ejaculation article. Whether or not female ejaculation exists is highly debated; its existence (beyond the belief that it is urine or mostly urine) has not truly been proven. Because of this, I believe that it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to put up a real-life image of supposed female ejaculation with the claim that it is female ejaculation. Furthermore, at the Vaginal lubrication article, you titled the caption as "Vaginal lubrication of a heavely aroused woman." You cannot simply take a vaginal lubrication image and title it "female ejaculation." I reverted you at the Vaginal lubrication article because there are already two real-life images of vaginal lubrication in the article, and one is from you; I don't see that another is needed. I reverted you at the Sexual arousal article because you were claiming the image as female ejaculation there as well, and because we already have a vaginal lubrication image there; one is enough, just like one real-life image of male erection is enough for that article. If you want to dispute me on these matters, I suggest you bring your case up on the article talk pages. Do not WP:Edit war. I also want to take this time to point you to WP:GRATUITOUS, and ask that you keep that guideline in mind when adding images to articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)