User talk:Ewawer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barnstar[edit]

In the fine Wikipedia tradition, I am happy to give you this barnstar to recognize all your hard work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For a great deal of hard work to improve articles on a wide range of topics. TeaDrinker (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your work on the La Trobes or Latrobes. Nice to see the articles developing. Victuallers (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 09:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Dear Ewawer, thank you for your great job in expanding the article I created about mixed bathing. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks for your awesome work on the Bikini article. I have been looking for a good copyeditor for so long now, that I find it hard to believe that the article finally has someone of you caliber to work on it. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fuel taxes in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GST. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

If you are going to remove content its always best to provide an explanation in your summary or on the talk page. In general, its always a good idea to provide an edit summary, would you mind? Its poor form to create paragraphs with one sentence. You divided a paragraph on health related expenses in a recent budget for no good reason. It looks awful which is one of the reason you rarely find paragraphs like that in a featured article. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexual exploration article[edit]

Ewawer, why do you think we need a Sexual exploration article, as opposed to redirecting it to the Human sexual activity or Human sexuality article and covering the matter there? You previously redirected the term to the Human sexual activity, which I think was an okay action (though the Human sexuality article is perhaps a better redirect), and is why I re-redirected it there. I don't see any need for a Sexual exploration article. It is needless WP:Content forking (causing our readers to go another article when they can just as easily read about it one of the existing articles). It's a topic that is already covered by the Human sexuality and Human sexual activity articles, and is redundant to those. It's also somewhat challenging to discuss either of those topics without discussing sexual exploration. See WP:Spinout; there is no need for haste. It's not ideal to create WP:Stubs. The Sexual frustration article, for example, is currently a very small WP:Stub that is barely doing a justice to our readers; it would be best redirected to/covered in the Human sexual activity article until it can actually be a healthy article. The only reason that I have not redirected that article to a different article is because the topic is a WP:Notable topic, and because I plan to significantly expand it with scholarly references at some point. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you look at the topic of sexual exploration on Google Books (seen here), you can see that it is a topic that is mostly discussed in terms of child sexuality and adolescent sexuality; I also came to that conclusion after heavily researching the topic years ago in books I have at home and at local libraries. And that it mostly concerns child sexuality and adolescent sexuality is likely why the Sexual exploration article you created was mostly about children. In my opinion, the term sexual exploration is best off redirected to the Human sexuality article; content specific to child sexuality or adolescent sexuality can go in those articles, with the Human sexuality article summarizing the matters and pointing readers to the other articles for in-depth material on those subjects. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I created the sexual exploration article as a redirect as a holding article while I searched and linked other references to it in other articles. After that I started building the article, which I indicated as a stub. Other then that, I agree with what you say. Enthusiast (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw your stub comment in the edit history. I'm generally not fond of WP:Stubs or otherwise significantly short Wikipedia articles; like WP:Stub states, "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." I usually find that such articles can be merged with another article, as recently as this one, and I only break content into a separate article when needed. I went ahead and redirected the term sexual exploration to the Human sexuality article. There is already a subsection there about child sexuality, in the Sexuality and age section; it points to the Child sexuality article for more detail, as it should per WP:Summary style. The Sexuality and age section is currently missing an Adolescent sexuality subsection, though. Flyer22 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I have decided to put my proposed article on Sexual exploration into the "too hard basket". I looked over the Human sexuality article, which is a shambles. Like a lot of similar articles, people dump vast and wide-ranging, tangential materials which spoil the quality and tone of the articles. For example, why flood the Human sexuality article with anatomical information? Anyway, I may come back to those issues from time to time, but my past experience has been frustrating and not resulted in too many worthwhile outcomes. Enthusiast (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Sexual exploration article, above (your "10:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)" post) you seem to be in agreement with me that it's not needed.
I agree that the Human sexuality article is a mess. But as for anatomical information, it's clear to me that this information is there because human sexuality is about, as the article states, "the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses." Understanding biological, physical and sexual anatomy is essential to understanding "the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses." I've stated this before on the Human sexuality talk page, but human sexuality concerns all things that have to do with human sexuality, including sexual behavior. One could perhaps validly state that it is the umbrella term for a variety of sexual topics, so it's not surprising that it has become what you call a dumping ground. But regarding the anatomy information, perhaps you are stating that there's too much of it there? If so, I agree. There is a lot of information in that article that needs to be cut down or cut out completely. I will get to fixing up that article at some point, but, like I stated at its talk page, "I've pretty much viewed the article as too complicated and too problematic, including with regard to drive-by edits (whether made by long-term Wikipedia editors, WP:Student editors or other WP:Newbies), to devote much of my time to." Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual fantasy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inhibition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preferential voting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Political Funding in Australia[edit]

As an observer of pages on "political funding" I would like to thank you for this move that I have considered for quite a while but was unable to do. I feel that this is a big improvement! Khnassmacher (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nudity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inhibition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fee tail[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bikini variants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C-string (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually[edit]

Do you know of another article where those images would be best to stick? Tutelary (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you comment on the talk page? It's kind of important to rather than revert me. I could stand with you because I purely think it's a misapplication of WP:NOR. Tutelary (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terra Australis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Holland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)