User talk:Edgarde/2006

User_talk:66.229.167.162
Did I get this right? Looked thru the Format and Boilerplate pages and couldn't find a good shortcut to link "(diff)" in page history, tho I've seen it done on pages I cannot otherwise remember. Would also like to know if just generally I'm doing more good that harm with this. I do realise the user of that IP address will probably never read that page.edgarde 12:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Edgarde, you did the right thing, and your link to the diff is good. You are definitively doing more good that harm, as this is the correct way to warn vandals. Most vandal fighters do not link to the exact diff; you can specify only the page that was vandalised (the vandal will probably remember what he did...). There are templates to do exactly this, in this example: Falsetto . Some editors simply add a warning without even specifying which page was vandalised. The important points are that the vandal knows that his vandalism has been discovered, and that vandal fighters can know if he has been warned several already, so that he can be blocked if necessary. Is that clear enough ? If no, please don't hesitate to ask me for more information on my talk page. Otherwise, is there anything else I can help ? Schutz 13:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That answers my questions. Thank you much.edgarde 13:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You semiprotection request
Your request for semiprotection for phone sex was declined, because there is not enough activity in that page to require semiprotection (which, by our Semiprotection Policy is a last resort). I've put that page on my watchlist, though, and I suggest that you do too. Thanks! Borisblue 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Phone sex recat
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, because I had actually made a little mistake. There are two "sex moves" type categories: Category:Sexual acts (or established positions, etc.) and Category:Sex moves (the raunchier category that has some sexual urban legends). Anyway, I was reading the article in German and Sexual acts is the category that's used there. What I meant to add was Category:Sexual acts. Phone sex is an act, and it's sexual, wouldn't you agree? Category:Human sexuality seems rather general, and it's such a big category; that's why I recategorized. - GilliamJF 06:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Even Category:Sexual_acts is basicly ways humans sex "in the flesh", so to speak. Pornography, for instance, is not included (but it is under Category:Human sexuality). I think both Category:Sexual acts and Category:Sex moves are mistakes here. – edgarde 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert my addition, no big deal. Thanks.  06:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have an idea: how about replacing Category:Human sexuality with Category:Erotica.  GilliamJF 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Preemptive disambiguations
Hi, I'm sorry if I didn't really explain properly on the page why I've done this. The reason I did this was that several bands (such as Vib Gyor) release demo EP's under these names before they actually release an album under a real name and once the bands become successful people may want to create a page with these names to create a full history of the bands discography, I haven't got around to it yet but I do intent to create pages for the Vib Gyor EPs and will add links to these pages in due course when I have got round to creating the pages. Unfortunately also due to the way in which wiki works the pages can't be moved back straight off without the intervention of an administrator as the pages simply labeled EP without the bands name in brackets after must first be deleted before the page and its history, and talk page and history are moved back, also I have re-directed all of the links on other pages to the new pages so these will have to be altered back if the page is moved back. I hate edit wars myself and don't want to get involved in one. If you feel that the work I have done really does need reverting then please contact an administrator and if they feel the revert needs to take place then I will fully accept their decision. --Chappy84 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * like I said "...If you feel that the work I have done really does need reverting then please contact an administrator and if they feel the revert needs to take place then I will fully accept their decision." --Chappy84 08:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of sex tourism
Edgarde, This is Daniel who you've been corrisponding with regarding the Sex tourism page. In case you haven't noticed by now, I'm new at Wikipedia. :-) I just read through the guidelines and the processes of despute resolution.  Thank you for making that RfC link for us, and introducing it on the talk page of Sex tourism.

I made a change to the end of the Sex tourism definition, and I wanted to know if this is acceptable to you? Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not acceptable. For the same reasons stated repeatedly by me and by User:RandomP, the points of which you have managed to repeatedly miss. I find it very hard to believe you are being sincere.


 * Please revert your definition to the former one. Please remove your spam link to Sly Sex Guide. It has been explained to you with clarity what you are doing wrong; your latest set of changes does not address any of these problems. &mdash; edgarde 06:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is reverted on User_talk:KyndFellow

Award of a Barnstar
awarded 2006-11-21T21:02:40 , moved to User page 2006-12-18T18:52:47, restored here 05:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex tourism
Edgarde, do you still want to do attribution? If so, I was thinking it would be helpful to the reviewing committee if we could specify specific content (e.g. phrases and links) that we respectively want or do not want in the article in a final section of the discussion page before we hand it over to them. I'll need some help filing the application and making preparations, please, as I have never done attribution before.

Congratulations on your award, by the way. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Me
I will refraim from editing the sex toursim page till you feel clear about my identity. The timing of your inquiry is a bit ironic, since your reply to the proposed split of sex tourism and child sex tourism pretty much had me convinced. Devalover 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Edgarde, please confirm that you have been notified that I have filed arbitration on the Requests for arbitration page, and fill in your statement.
 * Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 03:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. &mdash; edgarde 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A few comments on the Sex tourism arbitration
Edgarde, I think that declining mediation might reflect badly on you.

The ArbCom prefers not to involve itself in content dispute, but in serious breach of policies. Normally they deal with things such as of sockpuppets, misuse of administrator tools, users who have no wish to make useful contributions, etc.

You said It's illogical to accept mediation when I know in advance that Mr. Knodel will not abide by any agreement that requires him to not enter his spam link.

You should be aware that, from what I can tell, you are the only one to oppose the link to Sly Traveler? So how can we know it is spam? Maybe you are the one who is at wrong.

If Mr. Knodel did use sockpuppet to promote his wish, it would be a serious problem. But if he didn't, then that shows that other users -- unrelated to Mr. Knodel for all we know -- support Mr. Knodel's version.

Fred-Chess 11:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Knodel proposed mediation weeks ago. I have not been contacted by a mediator since. And I'm just noticing now, Mr. Knodel deleted that comment from my Talk page. How unusual. Here's the text of that one:
 * "Endgard, would you be willing work with a mediatior to help resolve the dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyndFellow (talk • contribs)

Have your mediator contact me. Not committing yes or no until I speak to the person you want to bring in. &mdash; edgarde 07:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)"


 * Notice the dates. This was Mr. Knodel's attempt to drag this conflict out. Is it logical for me to agree to mediation when it's really a stalling tactic? &mdash; edgarde 11:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Edgarde, hope it's ok to post here. I agree with this earlier comment by Fred. Could I enquire as to the name of the mediator? Addhoc 12:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * AddHoc: The more the merrier. I seem to recall asking on the Discussion page where this mediator was &mdash; that probably wasn't the best way to broach the subject, but I really figured this mediator was a phantom. No progress was being made in that direction. I mean, progress for me. For some other editor, stalling might be a form of progress. &mdash; edgarde 12:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Corps of Administrators
{helpme} I'm told "obvious violations of WP:COI should be handled by the Corps of Administrators". What a jolly bunch they must be. Where are these people and how do I submit a complaint to them? &mdash; edgarde 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most probably Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to submit a complaint.--Commander Keane 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sex tourism destination
Edgarde, I didn't know that you called the 'editing and contibutions' of destinations -a 'definition wars' ^:-). I just added more individual cities and particular major Red-light Districts because I am living in Europe. I already know that the major destinations for sex tourism worldwide is in Amsterdam and Germany. You just need to add few other major destinations like in New York and in London (latest news of the prostitute killings - http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/14/uk.prostitute.reut/index.html, http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/14/prostitute.timeline/index.html), besides other major cities in Asia and Africa which you overlooked, your missing the point.

I will edit it again and it is up to WIKI's arbiter then, and I will rest my case.

John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrJohn 1234 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Fair notice
I'm sorry if this bothers you (it bothers me too), I had to take the image issue to the administrator's notice board WP:AN. It seems only fair to tell you that your name might come up there. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs ] • email ) 04:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the silence is deafining so far. I left the pictures up so folks could see what I'm talk about, but maybe I should take them down...I don't know...I hate this board (except when it's funny). NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs ] • email ) 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, excellent statement - you did everything right. Yeah, I'm waiting... NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs ] • email ) 05:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Edgarde, it is my belief that the thing is permanently handled. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs ] • email ) 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration at Eva Peron article
Thanks for the response regarding the Eva Peron article. I have decided to abandon the article, however. I just don't have time or energy to deal with the constant bickering in that article. I suppose there are some topics that are very controversial and that attract constant bickering. This article seems to be the case. I can't deal with it anymore. Thanks for the response, though. Andrew Parodi 06:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Upskirt
Hi Edgarde,
 * I realize that you're in the midst of an arbitration process, but I could use some help with the legislative portion of the article Upskirt. The leglislation is huge, and world-wide. In particular, camera-phone legislation is interesting.
 * I'm hoping that you can help - perhaps it would take your mind off other things. Currently, no-one else is editing this article (other than fixing typos) other than me, and I did a major re-write of the article about a month ago (check out what it was previously, frankly it's pretty funny).
 * Thanks in advance for your consideration of this,
 * NinaNinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Edgarde. At the time I did this re-write, the legislative sources were rich. I didn't realize I should have struck while the iron was hot. I also didn't know as much as I know now about Wikipedia policy. Fun fact: I put in the OR in question. I worked at an adult bookstore in the Chicago Loop (financial district) for a year. Mostly I needed the money, but I learned a lot as well.
 * In other words, I know these things to be fact, but I doubt highly we could find a source for them. Mostly, I was trying to head certain additions off at the pass. Particularly the faked celebrity part, which is absolutely true (though with certain celebrities, not so true anymore- insert dry chuckle here), it's probably as unnecessary as the rest of that portion. There's still a good source on the talk page about privacy issues. I'll add it as a reference now.
 * I never did find out the issues with your arbitration, but I'm glad it's over for you. It's a draining process, and one I would like to avoid in the future (and I was just an outside party - in another case). I'm sure we can find other articles to collaborate on as well that aren't sex-related (or are, I don't care) :) . NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 14:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Small update: I found my original link plus another healthy one, so I added them. I also found an entire class archive[], but I don't know how ethical it is to use it. I may contact the Mr. Friedman and just plain ask him. Cheers!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 15:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added three solid links so far. I don't know about you, but I've found with potentially controversial articles, it's best to add the references first, then write. the Honolulu Advertiser in particular is a good one for addressing a couple of your concerns. Once again, I am positively STOKED you're on board - you are exactly the kind of editor I've been looking for on Wikipedia. We have much the same style of analysis.
 * On a side note, you might enjoy The Neutrality Project, being started by WizardryDragon. Cheers!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Ed, if you want to back out, feel free. In my excitement and haste, I didn't read all of what you wrote. This moist topic I can certainly handle myself (insert dry chuckle here). By all means, follow your heart:).NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits? I doubt I'll have any problem:).NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have is that it leads to an old definition (before my re-write)in a google search. Look it up yourself. It's not a good definition for a number of reasons. On an interesting side note, it appears Answer.com doesn't care for the current article much. I'm glad you took out girl, it creeped me out, but I had no reason to revert it.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, this has all the makings of a big, respectable article. It might not be featured (though it should be), but it's a really hot, important topic right now. At some point I want to start writing about how some "upskirt" legislation is actually being used used to enhance surveillance, rather than stop it. The whole thing is fascinating, given the Homeland Security Act and the issue of privacy in general.


 * I don't know what your leanings are Ed, but it is important to keep this topic neutral. On this issue, I'm weirdly on both sides (though not on the non-consensual side - ever). I have to go right now, but I'm going to add some content from the Business Week link I made a while ago. It might be the first use of the word to describe something other than the images itself - fascinating!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

M&M
You start with a little insult and move straight on to the most facile and almost always ironic one of all: 'trolling'. No worries, mate. Since I was new to the whole wikipedia thing, my approach to misandry was patterned on misogyny, and while both are certainly different 'things', both deserve the same level of editorial scrutiny. There seems to be a rather unnecessary (and tautological?) distinction you are drawing between incredibly blatant examples of quote bias and, presumably, less incredibly blatant ones. Jgda 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't edit misogyny. Is that the comparison you are making? Cos otherwise you have me lost. Also, I'm not sure how you justify quote bias (basicly misquotes in this case) with other quote bias. &mdash; edgarde 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly not justifying: that's the whole point. You write 'Your comment on Talk:Misogyny is an unreasonable interpretation of the discussion on Talk:Misandry, where an incredibly blatant example of quote bias was produced.' So it appeared you were saying because you considered them incredibly so, then they need to be treated differently from the quotes in the misogyny article, which may just be garedn-variety blatant, or just are so self-evidently what they are being said to be that they don't require the same editorial scrutiny. But now they become misquotes...basicly... Credibility? Perhaps closer to Incredibilty... Jgda 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess my need to throw in intensifiers like "incredibly blatant" is just a reaction to how obstinately certain misandry editors were defending &mdash; heck, holding up as unimpeachible &mdash; questionable material from a clearly biased organization that could have been quote-mining.


 * You write in Talk:Misogyny that quotes "must be backed up by appropriate apolitical sources or they will be deleted". It's a pretty strict policy considering you had just taken a completely opposite position on admitting unreliable material on Misandry. By now I'm sure you know the one about the kettle, and you're snitting about hypocrisy in my direction as well.


 * Dunno. Can you see what you're doing at all? Maybe I shouldn't have bothered you. &mdash; edgarde 05:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, the world is full of maybes... No, it's just that I've learnt and have moved on. I personally have no problem with the quotes as they appeared in misandry and as they appear in misogyny, but if that's how the system works, then I accept that. I'm not indulging in the revert wars or any of the edit war silliness. I'm applying what I've learnt. What could I be snitting about? Jgda 07:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed
Ed, gently, you're drifting away a bit from NPOV. It's not Wikipedia's mission or place to assess what is and isn't pornography, or voyeuristic, or merely erotic or adult. The best example I can think of to describe what I'm talking about is to use an analogy with the article on Cults. If you read the article, it's extremely objective.

I value your contributions - in fact, I just realized you set up a straw poll. I'm wondering if you realize that there really aren't too many other people around doing any editing of this article. It's pretty much up to us to decide what to do with it. Please don't take the observation above harshly. Sincerely,NinaNinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)