User talk:Curved Space/Archive 1

Computer for sex
Bitter Moon is one of the first movies where is it shown that a computer is used for sex. It may even be the first, but there's isn't enough evidence for it. This piece of information relates both to the Digital Revolution and the Sexual Revolution.--Fabrizioberloco (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If there "isn't enough evidence for it" then it is original research, non-notable, and does not belong in the article. Curved Space (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not original research, it's a matter of fact.--Fabrizioberloco (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's "a matter of fact" then you should be able to source your claims reliably. If you can't do that, then it's not "a matter of fact", and is both original research and non-notable.  Curved Space (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What I wrote is simply not wrong, and it's a pity, in my opinion, to leave it out of the page. Anyway I'm not going to answer any more messages. Do what you believe is right.--Fabrizioberloco (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:CREDITS
Just curious what within MOS:CREDITS led you to believe that it is not appropriate to credit Seedfeeder in the caption of his/her illustrations? Seedfeeder Fan (talk)
 * For all the reasons highlighted in this thread. Additionally, I would have reverted these edits too because the caption is presumptive. Just because it's a man and a woman does not automatically categorize them as heterosexual - they could quite as easily be bisexual.  Curved Space (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

BDSM revisions
BDSM... Can we discuss the changes you reversed? I cite myself as the authority for my edits, being that I have been active in BDSM culture for 49 years, before the term BDSM was coined.

I apologise for not having written any books on the subject, and also being a technical novice at the formats and protocols used for creating and revising wiki articles. I am dyslexic; getting fully versed on these formalities by reading alone would take six times the time and effort of a normal person.

Nevertheless, I do have English spelling, grammar, proofreading and composition skills to contribute in addition to my familiarity with this and a number of other subjects. Much of the content of this article is just plain factually wrong, including the name of the article itself. Can you help me make a contribution to fix this? Sources said (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how much help I can offer. Your talk page already has a good start in the welcome template that another editor has left for you.  This contains many core requirements for editing, or rather successful editing, on Wikipedia.  I guess the most important thing to understand is the concept of reliable sourcing and verifiability.  You say that you're an authority, but in order to be recognized as such you need to have published and peer-reviewed papers in the subject you with to be known for.  As far as proofing goes, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you try to make fundamental changes to an established article, especially without supporting it, you will probably be challenged and asked to validate on the talk page.  I guess I'd suggest that - refactor the above statement and repost it to the Dominance and submission talk page, and see what kind of reception you get there?  Curved Space (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda
Thanking you personally. If I see the editor popping up at other articles I significantly edit, this will be going to WP:ANI. Hopefully, I can count on you weighing in there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Clothed male, naked female
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

To help move things along, I have started a discussion on the article talk page about the disputed edit, which you will find here. Please take the opportunity to make your views known there. It is best not to restore the material you added until there is a consensus among the editors there to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See the talk page for my response as to why you are mistaken. Curved Space (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

CFNM
Why did you remove my whole edit? You literally put that CFNM is a fiction-exclusive fetish, which is wrong. You also removed any mention about CFNF and CMNM for no reason.

That's an article telling real-life stories about women and men who enjoy CFNM domination activities. That's an article about a BDSM professional talking about what is CFNM in BDSM activities. I don't know why you removed them. The entire opening paragraph has no reference and is entirely subjective now.

I don't think you had bad faith when you said that CFNM is not popular based on your own opinion. But CFNM is a popular term as a sexual activity. Now let's see the facts:

"CFNM" "bdsm" on Google: 80.300.000 results... "CFNM" "fetish": 67.500.000... "CFNM" "femdom": 66.700.000

"CMNF" "bdsm" on Google: 9.320.000 results... "CMNF" "fetish": 9.270.000

"CFNF" "bdsm" on Google: 2.550.000... "CFNF" "fetish": 2.410.000

"CMNM" "bdsm" on Google: 2.350.000... "CMNM" "fetish": 2.200.000

CMNF has 380 results on XVideos and 305 results on Pornhub, for example. CFNM has 24,183 results on xvideos and 3033 results on Pornhub. "femdom" "cfnm" has 488 results on Pornhub, in other words, a few hundred Pornhub videos has the words "cfnm" and "femdom" in their title.

You can still refuse to believe that CFNM is a more popular term in BDSM or as a fetish in general than CMNF, CFNF and CMNM, that's okay. You can even remove the fact that CFNM is a more popular term in BDSM than CMNF, CFNF and CMNM, that's okay. But you can't remove that whole edit with useful references. You could only have rewritten in a way that suits you best.

That's another article that also says that CFNM is a fetish where there is power exchange because the man becomes vulnerable and submissive.

That's another article that also says that CFNM is more popular than CMNF as a fetish.

That's another article that mention the existence of CFNF and CMNM, which you removed. And this is an article just talking about CMNM.

That's another article about a real-life CFNM story. But you basically put "CFNM fiction frequently includes the clothed female taking on the role of a dominatrix over the nude male", which is wrong. CFNM as a domination activity exists outside fiction-world.

That's another article that also mentions that CFNM parties exists. I had not put this information explicitly on Wikipedia. But that first reference was exactly about these parties.

This article mentions that CFNM has a close connection to the BDSM because of the domination-submission activity.

What more do you need to believe CFNM exists in the real world and that my edit had slightly improved a bad article? gabibb2  ✉  10:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Take it up on the article talk page. And also look up WP:BRD and WP:AGF while you're at it.  Curved Space (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I looked up WP:BRD. I created a section on CFNM discussion page on October 15th. No one bothered to talk about it. So, 6 days later, I did the editing and you reverted it without any discussion. gabibb2  ✉  12:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Reversion and policy
I'm not going to contest this revert of yours at Dominance and submission, and I appreciate your leaving an informative edit summary explaining your rationale for the revert. However just so you are aware, the portion of your edit summary where you said, You require consensus for inclusion, NOT for removal has no basis in policy. Your revert was valid for other reasons, which is why I'm letting it be. But as you continue to edit articles, whether to add material or to remove material, it should always follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and that is not one of them. So you should try to avoid reusing that phrase as an edit summary to accompany a valid revert, as it's misleading and might elicit a re-revert from an editor focused too narrowly on the incorrect summary, even if your revert was actually valid for other reasons. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S., I'm an expert in search, and the numbers quoted in the previous section above are pure nonsense. I don't blame the editor who quoted them at all, because probably 95% of editors have no idea how to reach a valid conclusion from search result data, with hit count tallies probably topping the list. If this becomes an issue for you, and you need more information or support one way or the other, feel free to ping me. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for the note, but your edit clearly broke WP:CAUTIOUS, and comes close to edit warring even if carried out by multiple editors.  These are both policy.  Moreover, WP:CONSENSUS itself is broadly in effect -- it is quite obvious that there was not only no consensus for inclusion (hence WP:BOLD et al is inapplicable) but already voiced opposition to inclusion.  To therefore reinsert anyway and then discuss the merits is anathema to the cooperative nature of Wikipedia.  The upshot of this is that whilst you may find policy to back up your claim that I was against policy -- there are always policies that will back up my claim as well -- such is the nature of Wikipedia and the myriad of intepretations.  Curved Space (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your peer reviews
Thank you for your review/undos. I came across some articles that I thought they could be applicable (using the same image resources in different articles they're originally made for) but probably not that great of an idea. So it was better to have the articles reverted as you did. Wasn't the original intention as a "fetish playground", as you suggested. I concur it was not really useful or relevant nevertheless. I hope this clears things up. Cheers Adenosine Triphosphate (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)