User talk:MsBatfish

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

Please put new comments at the bottom of this page. Thanks!

Notes:

  • If you leave me a message here, I will generally reply here, unless you request otherwise, so you may wish to watchlist this page.
  • If I've left you a message I will most likely have watchlisted your page (unless I wasn't expecting any reply or your talk page says you will reply here).
  • If you leave me a {{talkback}}, or similar, please try to remember to sign it.
  • Click "New Section" above to leave a message.
  • Please try to be respectful, civil and constructive.
  • Remember to sign your posts using the four tildes (~~~~).


Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Re: inappropriate comments made here by an anonymous user[edit]

[comments removed]

I have put a warning on the IP editor's talk pageUser talk:70.53.152.32. Vrenator (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Vrenator! MsBatfish (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie transparent.png For being so enthusiastic as well as trying to seek consensus. (Just don't forget to be bold) -- Mrmatiko (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw this[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MsBatfish. You have new messages at Wikipedia:New_contributors' help page/questions#Proper formatting for citations?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi mister batfish[edit]

Just want to say hello and ty for your contribution to wikipedia. I'm new to wiki and I have problems getting around. I can't edit restricted articles yet and I am not sure I could keep up with the 10 edits/month pace needed to do so. If I have edit suggestions, I'll post them in the discussion and maybe ask you to make the editing with the text I provide. Of course, I have taken with smile your last comment on the prostitution page. In french, we use the expression "trafiquer les chiffres" for "cooking the books". In that sense, abolitionists are certainly great number traffickers. However, I think the article is getting better even if it needs still a lot of editing. IMHO, there should be a rule to be applied to that article: accepting only primary sources as reference.

Au plaisir!Gustave (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Gustave,
I will reply here as well as make a note on your user talk page as I am not sure whether or not you received the message I left for you at User talk:Gustave55555. I was also a bit confused because your user name shows up simply as "Gustave" but directs to "Gustave55555". While it is not necessary that your signature name be exactly the same as your user name, according to Wikipedia:signatures it is inadvisable to use a name that closely resembles a user name already taken by another user. In this case, however, I think "Gustave" should probably be ok to use if you want to go on using it, because the user called User:Gustave hasn't been active on Wikipedia since 2006.
As for editing protected pages, you do not need to make 10 edits per month in order to do so, you simply need to make 10 edits total before you can edit a semi-protected page (such as the Prostitution article. Once you have made a total of 10 edits (which I think applies only to articles and not talk pages, but I'm not certain) you will be considered an "autoconfirmed user" and able to edit semi-protected pages any time you wish. It really isn't that difficult to rack up 10 edits, even making a minor edit such as fixing a spelling mistake counts. You can see the relevant Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed user and Wikipedia:Protection.
Editing other articles on Wikipedia in order to get your first 10 edits is also good practice to learn about the editing process. Please let me know if you need any help. In the meantime, if you have any specific suggestions for the Prostitution article I will do my best to try to help you with them. Thanks for wanting to help improve the article :-) --MsBatfish (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the notification; I've made what I hope will be helpful comments at the dispute page. - Nunh-huh 10:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. It's disappointing how one pov-pusher can waste so many good editors' time.
And wow – from your edit at DRN, I'd have never guessed you registered less than three months ago! You seem to have picked up how Wikipedia works very quickly! Face-smile.svg Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 16:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the head's up Chwyatt (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse article -- thanks for your copyeditiing[edit]

Hello, MsBatfish. I just wanted to say thank you for your copyedits on this article. I will fix the few issues in it soon, nominate it for Good Article (GA) status and up hope it makes it (though I have no doubt that I can achieve GA status with it). Maybe once it's nominated, you'll be interested in helping out with any issues the GA reviewer brings up? Like copyediting?

I did tweak two of your edits, though, as seen here. The first one is just placement. The second is for accuracy. For the female orgasm part, I'm not sure if by "one estimate" you meant "one study" or just "one estimate" out of several. But I want to point out that every study on this thus far consistently reports the same thing -- that most women achieve orgasm only through clitoral stimulation. They typically estimate this to be 70 or 80% of women, so I put 70-80% for the clarity you were going for. I take it that you got 80% from one of the sources in the article? If so, one of the sources (WebMD) in the article also says 70; that's what I mean about the statistics usually being reported as 70-80 %. Anyway, I'd backed the "most women" line to four references because there are some people who still believe that vaginal (G-Spot) orgasms are common or are the most common, and that's just not true (especially with the recent discovery about how far clitoral tissue extends into the vagina and that the G-Spot is pretty much the clitoris as well).

But, again, thank you. And like I stated, if interested in helping out once I nominate this article for GA, let me know. What would you get out of it? Other than what you already get out of editing, you'd get a GA title under your belt. Flyer22 (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Flyer22,
Thanks for your comments :-) Not sure where you wanted me to reply, so I will reply here since your talk page says you like to reply where the message was left.
I liked almost all of your tweaks. I like saying 70-80% as I think it's better to be more specific than "most - that's what I was going for. However, I think it would be good to also add some way of explaining that this doesn't necessarily mean it has to be direct stimulation to the clitoris (for example, some women can get clitoral stimulation through vaginal intercourse) or solely clitoral stimulation. I actually have female friends who have said that because they read this they got the impression that they shouldn't even try to achieve orgasm through anything other than direct manual or oral stimulation to the clitoris and that it was impossible to achieve orgasm otherwise. In general, I also think it is good to be specific about whether one is talking about what is possible to do, what people do, what people report doing, and what researchers "estimate". That's why I think (in all articles) it's best to be as specific as possible (without going overboard) about where statistics and percentages come from. Especially in the area of human sexuality, what gets reported (to authorities, researchers, etc) is not necessarily what is. One notable example of this (although not in this particular article) is statistics regarding number of sexual partners.
The only other edit I am unsure about is how you changed my re-wording of "Some sections of Christianity commonly view sex between a married couple for the purpose of reproduction as holy" back to "Some sections of Christianity commonly view sex between a married couple as holy and for the purpose of reproduction". The latter sounds like a different thing, and I assumed they were talking about the former. If I was mistaken, perhaps I should find an additional source where it more clearly supports the former? The statement as it stands is confusing. The first reason being that one could take it as implying that all sex within marriage is for the purpose of reproduction. Some forms of Christianity view only sex for the purposes of reproduction as permissible, and only if the partners are married to each other. So is that sentence saying that some forms of Christianity actually view all sex within marriage as "for the purposes of reproduction"? (Even if the couple takes means to avoid becoming pregnant?) And "holy" is kind of a subjective term and not really defined in this context. Do you think that perhaps this section should be expanded on a bit to include other religious common views on sex? For example, I know many Christians view sex only as not a sin when it ends with the man ejaculating in the vagina.
Other than those 2 small things I think it looks good and I like your editing and I would be happy to work more on it with you and help out on getting it up to GA status.
Sorry this was so long! :-) MsBatfish (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Replying here is fine of course.
Regarding the orgasm text, it actually is direct stimulation the sources are talking about, except for in the case where we are talking about indirect stimulation via the partner's pubic bone. The other 20-30% percent of women are directly or indirectly stimulating an area through vaginal intercourse, which recent research is reporting as being a part of the clitoris all along. This would be the indirect simulation you are talking about. Masters and Johnson were the first to conclude that all women's orgasms are of clitoral origin. Now we have Dr. Helen O'Connell asserting this with extensive research. And she isn't the only one. Check out this YouTube source, from 9th Congress of the European Federation of Sexology Rome: Vaginal orgasm and G-spot don't exist-Sex education (in which people are debating that woman left and right in the comments section for reporting research that other researchers back her on). But we still can't go around calling the internal orgasms "clitoral," unless speaking of clitoral legs, until this is reported more widely or rather more widely accepted...because (until then) it would be denying that the G-Spot exists (which is currently heavily debated by researchers). While there seems to be more researchers who agree that "the G-Spot is a myth" (as a distinct structure, that is) than there are researchers asserting its existence, that "sweet spot" in the vagina is still typically called the G-Spot, not the clitoris or clitoral legs. For readers to understand that the other 20-30% percent of women are most likely achieving indirect stimulation of the clitoris via intercourse, I linked readers to the Orgasm#Female orgasm section (as a pipelink) and felt that would be sufficient instead of going into depth about the female orgasm in the Sexual intercourse article. But if you want a little there about how exactly the other 20-30% of women are achieving orgasm, I have no problem adding that.
I'm not sure where your friends would get that it's impossible to achieve an orgasm via vaginal intercourse. The text says "most" and now "70-80%" to go along with that, but this is because research continues to report this...without any dispute of it among other researchers. I have studied the topic extensively, and I used to have access to journal abstracts that state about the same thing (wish I could remember where I put them). But plenty of reliable sources on Google Books or Google Scholar, or on sites such as WebMD, pretty much state the same thing. It's not impossible to achieve vaginal orgasms, but it is unlikely. For example, Go Ask Alice! reports that "...the vaginal walls contain relatively few nerve endings, making intense sexual stimulation, pleasure, and orgasm from vaginal-only penetration unlikely" and that "it's generally only the lower third of the vagina that has enough nerve endings to feel any stimulation at all from a penis, finger, toy, or other penetrative object."[1] Likewise, author/activist/sexologist Rebecca Chalker states, "...only one part of the clitoris, the urethral sponge, is in contact with the penis, fingers, or a dildo in the vagina. The tip of the clitoris and the inner lips, which are also very sensitive, are not receiving direct stimulation during intercourse. The clitoris surrounds the vagina somewhat like a horseshoe. The urethral sponge, discussed previously, does run along the "roof" of the vagina, and it can be stimulated through the vagina, but the vagina itself has no mechanism to stimulate pleasure or orgasm for women."[2] It's still difficult for a lot of people, especially men, to believe that penile-vaginal penetration, while pleasurable for a lot of women, just typically doesn't produce orgasms. Which has been blamed on Sigmund Freud. Shere Hite has stressed this in some of her arguments that I have read over the years. For example, in this source (at the far bottom), Tracey Cox says: "It's disappointing that one of Hite's main messages - that 70 per cent of women don't have orgasms through penetration - is not completely accepted today. Plenty of women don't feel comfortable admitting it, even to themselves, for fear their partners will love them less. But women are far more experimental now." I understand what you mean about what is reported not always being fact, and this is why I hate that first line of WP:Verifiability. But researcher after researcher since Masters and Johnson's studies are adamant that this is fact. I understand how it might make women less inclined to try to have a vaginal orgasm, but we are reporting what the research says and many women have faked vaginal orgasms for years because they thought they were supposed to have them and that they were abnormal if they didn't have them. That said, I did add a "it is reported" version to the Orgasm article as a compromise with a male editor months ago. Which is still there. I also did the same to the Clitoris article just for consistency. I have no issue with adding "reported" or "research supports," etc. I'd prefer not to add "research suggests," though. Because it's not just a suggestion...in this case.
I'd changed the Christianity line because your version seemed to be saying that some Christians only view sex in marriage as holy when it's for reproduction. I was under the impression that these sects view any sex in marriage as holy...I suppose as long as it's only penile-vaginal sex. But as soon as I changed that edit similarly back to how it originally was, I thought about reverting it to your text. And I'll do that now. Thinking of the possibilities you listed is too complicated, LOL. I've got enough complication going on right now. And, yes, I do think that the Marital status and relationships section should be expanded with more information about Christian views on sexual intercourse and marriage. This was addressed at the beginning of the year. See Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6#In Christianity.
Awesome that you are willing to work with me. I look forward to it. I'm not looking to nominate the Sexual intercourse article for GA too soon. I'm currently helping to get the Asexuality article to GA status, despite it being nominated for GA against my wishes. For the Sexual intercourse article, I just mainly have to take care of the Prevalence, safe sex, and contraception section by giving it a wider WP:Worldwide view, and I'm looking to do the same to the Adolescents section. I also want to make an Etymology and definitions section and go over how different people/sources define sexual intercourse, moving the bit of information about that from the Reproduction and sexual practices section into this new section. But I'm certain that just by taking care of the Prevalence, safe sex, and contraception section, this article would already be ready for GA nomination.
And while we're on the subject of long replies, sorry that mine is so long. I don't mind yours at all; I'm used to such lengths or longer on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your detailed reply. It's so nice when editors want to work with other editors to improve articles, rather than acting like we are all against each other and edit warring or bitterly arguing over minor details, etc. It may take a bit more time and effort and involve conversing with other editors like this, but I think it's worth it :-)
I think the female orgasm research is too new and controversial and you're right, it isn't necessary to put that much detail in the Sexual intercourse article. It is also important to remember, as you said, that most people aren't aware of a lot of this type of research (or associated terminology like "clitoral legs" etc) and there are still a lot of things about the female anatomy and orgasm that we don't know or that doctors, researchers and sex experts don't even agree on amongst themselves. So it is important to use terminology that is easy for the average person to understand and concepts that are widely agreed upon.
The friends I mentioned were talking about the older version of the article and various other places (online or in books etc) that said basically the same thing, stating things like "most women only orgasm through clitoral stimulation", or, even worse, "most women can't orgasm through vaginal intercourse". I was trying to explain that this led me to conclude it was worth wording statements like this as carefully as possible to avoid misunderstandings or false conclusions. It doesn't necessarily need to be much more detailed, and I think the current version of the statement is already better and more specific than it was before.
I'll try to look for another source to make sure that my interpretation of the part about Christian views on sexual intercourse was correct.
I'm interested in helping improve any articles regarding human sexuality. I have been slowly trying to work on the ones relating to prostitution as well, as they are often somewhat biased (discussing opinions more than the actual facts about something, discussing one viewpoint only, or extrapolating studies done on one very specific group of people to represent everyone in that industry, etc). I also like just copy-editing articles and tweaking them for things like readability, specificity, clarity, grammar, attribution (who said what or where a statistic comes from) etc. I will check out some of the ones you are working on and the other sections of the intercourse article that you mentioned need work.
Perhaps some of that research you mentioned could be put to use on expanding the female orgasm section of Orgasm? Provided things are worded so that it's clear when something is preliminary research or not the only theory or not yet agreed upon, of course; then people can't dispute it as easily. I haven't even really looked at that article yet, actually, lol.
I'm kind of off and on about my editing on Wikipedia, so don't take it personally if I disappear for a bit. I've been spending way more time than I "should" on here. I can't help but want to help improve it and make it a better encyclopedia when I know how widely-read it is and that this is where a lot of people get their information from. But I don't have time to contribute as much as I'd like. MsBatfish (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Side note: I just read on your talk page what you wrote in July about wanting to leave Wikipedia and I thought "Wow, that's exactly how I feel!" lol. And I've only been here a few months! It does feel like a job. But, somebody's got to do it ;-) Perhaps I'll try to "embrace the horror" too. MsBatfish (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm all for working with other editors. Even with editors I'd rather not work with or often disagree with. That's part of the job not only here at Wikipedia, but in the general off-line working atmosphere. Maybe you've come across too many aggressive male editors? You know, Wikipedia is mostly made up of male editors. I don't mind, but it would definitely be good if there were many more females around here.
Oh, I definitely didn't mean to give the impression that no woman can have a vaginal orgasm. Like I stated, I was only reporting what researchers state and their research demonstrates. I probably should have put the specific estimates in (maybe even 60-80, since fewer sources, like the fourth one in the article, say 60 or 65% of women), but it's there now (the 70-80% bit, in the Orgasm and Clitoris articles as well) thanks to you. This will at least show readers that there is a good 20-30% of women who can orgasm without direct clitoral stimulation, and leaves no room for guessing the minority to be smaller than that. I have to state, however, that I don't view it as a bad thing that so many sources say "most women only orgasm through clitoral stimulation" or "most women can't orgasm through vaginal intercourse." To me, these sites and books, etc. have finally caught up with research in a world that used to say "vaginal orgasms are the orgasms you are supposed to have," a world that still largely expects this and elevates vaginal orgasms as "the natural/normal way," as shown by that female reader in the Go Ask Alice! source I linked to above who believed that her vagina was dysfunctional. Masters and Johnson documented how most of their female subjects could only achieve clitoral orgasms, and then Shere Hite consistently documented it in her female subjects. And since then, other researchers have backed this conclusion. Not just because it was shown to be the case for most of the women studied...but also because extensive examination of the female anatomy has shown that the clitoris has an amazing number of nerve endings, extending quite far, while the vagina has "relatively few" -- ones that are argued to be a part of the clitoris. The human clitoris is very similar to the human penis, and is therefore essentially equivalent when it comes to sexual stimulation, except that it has many more nerve endings than the penis. If there were reliable sources out there disputing that most women achieve orgasm only through clitoral stimulation, I assure you that I would have included them. But while researchers are not in agreement about the G-Spot, they are generally in agreement about the clitoris being "the key" to the female orgasm for the majority of women. And, yes, the research (except that YouTue video) I mentioned in my post before this one is already in the Female orgasm section of the Orgasm article. That's why I stated that I directed readers there for the in-depth information. I did recently add more information to the Orgasm article, though, which is what I'll do to the Sexual stimulation section of the Clitoris article for the first line (removing "it is reported" and "Research shows" and replacing that with what you see in the link)[3] and to the Sexual intercourse article (to address the indirect stimulation topic in the same line).[4]
About the Christian topic, I saw yesterday that one editor in the link I provided you with above (about a past discussion on the topic) told me that "The 'holyness' applies to marriage as far as I know, not to sex within the marriage." However, an IP below him disagrees with parts of his statement. Hope you can clear some of it up.
Yeah, I saw from your user page that you were mainly motivated to work here because of the prostitution articles, and that your editing can be sporadic. No worries, I'll assume that you're busy or just tired of a discussion (LOL) when you don't answer me in a "timely fashion" or at all. Since you may help out with other articles I'm involved in (though beware that discussions at the Pedophilia article have been known to boggle people's minds, whether familiar with the subject or not), feel free to ask me for help on anything as well.
Already wanting to leave Wikipedia after only having been here for a few months? Well, I'm not surprised, LOL. I have had thoughts about not leaving since that July discussion. But after getting a few more GAs under my belt, I'll still most likely be leaving. The only way I can cope without frustration here any longer is when I'm not on it for half or most of the day, or mainly not involved in some debate. Lately, I've been on it for half a day or less. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not wanting to leave Wikipedia completely (yet), I've just come to a lot of the same conclusions as you and have similar feelings about it. It is hard for me to find the balance between spending way too much time on it and viewing it as some kind of personal responsibility, and not looking at it or editing it at all.
As for views on the female orgasm, I think that in our efforts to refute the idea that there was something "wrong" with a woman if she could not easily reach orgasm through simple vaginal penetration alone, we may have gone too far in the opposite direction. From my experience, a lot of members of the public now believe that it is not physically possible for any woman to orgasm without direct clitoral stimulation, and many have mistakenly interpreted this to mean solely direct clitoral stimulation (without any other sexual activity involved). Without going into too much personal detail, I have certainly met and heard of many men, for example, who disbelieve a woman if she claims or appears to have orgasmed through intercourse, or believe it is their duty to spend hours performing oral or manual stimulation directly to the clitoris prior to any other sex acts, even contrary to the woman's protests. Lol. So these are just some of the reasons why I said I thought it was necessary to be specific and careful about wording relating to this subject.
I think the "holy" sentence could be problematic, so I am researching some alternative sources and ways of saying it right now.
Speaking of Pedophilia there are some subjects I just think it's best not to get too involved in, lol. I have seen vicious hate-campaigns on here against people who even so much as mention it; one guy was accused of having a "pederast agenda" and of being a pedophile simply because he edited related articles. Sigh... MsBatfish (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: See what you think of [my edit] to Sexual intercourse and you can tweak it or cull it if you think it's too long. I was going for the most clarity, but it is now relatively longer than the segments on other religious views on intercourse. Although perhaps some of them could be a bit more comprehensive as well (for example, not all Jews interpret the rules of Judaism the same way, not all Buddhists have the same beliefs, etc). MsBatfish (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict because I became distracted with something else while replying]
Oh, I see. Not quite ready to throw in the towel yet. Neither am I, but it seems I'm farther along than you. Maybe because I've been here longer, like I told another editor back in July?
I'm not sure what to say about going too far in disproving the "You should be having vaginal orgasms" theory. I just see it as research having been done and having proved a falsehood. Something that continues to be supported every time a similar study is done (even through online surveys). When research is this consistent, in this case shown in large samples of women every time, I feel that it's safe to say that it's true. In my experience, the research has generally made sense to women, some of whom have basically said..."Oh, so that's why." LOL. I know that it made a lot of sense to me when I first learned of how similar the clitoris is to the penis. The penis is the key for men, and so... Well, you get the point. To me, asking a woman not to use her clitoris (and by "clitoris" in this instance, I'm not talking about any part stimulated through vaginal penetration) during sex is like asking a man not to use his penis during sex. Even women who can orgasm through vaginal penetration may not orgasm through it reliably, and still orgasm much easier through clitoral stimulation (if she's aware of how to bring herself to orgasm, that is). I'm of course not sure how many people believe that a woman can't orgasm through vaginal intercourse, but I don't believe it to be the majority of people. Like I stated, society still largely portrays vaginal orgasms as the norm, through typical romance novels, television, and in film (in television and film, you generally see the man and woman in coital bliss and are led to believe that vaginal penetration is what "did it" for her...assuming you aren't thinking that his pubic bone was stimulating her clitoris). And I've met men who had no idea what a clitoris is. It is a little scary to think that people would take the research into the female orgasm to mean solely direct clitoral stimulation without any other sexual activity involved (though many women do orgasm that way, by just being worked up through fingering or oral). What I mean is...simply pressing the button is not going to do it in most cases unless that counts as foreplay. Human females need foreplay or some other type of mental stimulation to get them sexually aroused. And if a man is only directly simulating a woman's clitoris without paying attention to other parts of her body, that can be unsatisfactory as well. All that said, I get your drift.
Good. Thank you.
Well, the Pedophilia article used to be plagued with pedophiles a few years ago; this was also reported in the media. We got rid of all of them, and are very cautious of any new editor popping up to edit that or its related articles because of that. I can see how one would think someone is a pedophile if they edit the Pedophilia article, but it (pedophiles editing that article) is just typically not that way anymore. The main editors of it now (including me) are determined to keep such editors away from it.
[Seeing your new edit after the edit conflict], I like it. You covered all the bases quite well. It may be considered "too long" in comparison to other religions listed, but those can be expanded as well. And maybe the view on sex outside/in marriage is more complicated for Christianity? Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For the lead, I changed it to this, leaving out mention of hermaphrodites altogether because it was already stated as unneeded on the talk page. Your version said :The term may also describe other sexual penetrative acts between members of opposite sexes, members of the same sex, or hermaphrodites, (as is the case with snails). It may also include sexual acts such as anal sex, oral sex and fingering, which can be practiced by both heterosexual and homosexual partners.

But opposite sexes is already covered by the first line. Your version also mentioned sexual penetration away from the line about anal sex, oral and fingering, which I found odd (if you were being general with the terms, I want to point out that the lead is going over sexual penetration in the first paragraph because sexual intercourse is typically defined as penetrative sex, then non-penetrative sex in the second paragraph). And hermaphrodites, when speaking of humans anyway, should be typically referred to as intersex. And, finally, intersex individuals are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual...too. That's why we only have to say "heterosexual and same-sex pairings" -- opposite sex and same sex. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I decided to change it to this, per what I stated in the edit summary. "Heterosexual and homosexual pairings" covers opposite-sex and same-sex pairings, no matter their sexual identity or gender identity (for example, it covers asexuals who form purely romantic relationships and may engage in sex to please a sexual partner...while other asexuals do not). If anyone feels that there is a need to mention "hermaphroditic" or "intersex," we could say "The partners may be of opposite sexes, or they may be intersex (in the case of snails and other such animals, this is referred to as hermaphroditic)." Something like that. But with regard to intersex individuals, their sexual partners typically aren't also intersex. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that's perfect. Much less weird-sounding than it was before, and more concise. The article is mainly about human sex, so I really don't think the snail part was necessary, and all manner of genders and sexes are covered by the current terms anyway. MsBatfish (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. Some months ago, there was an extensive debate about the article being mostly dominated by human sexual activity and subsequently the article title (see Talk:Sexual intercourse/Archive 6#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex, if you haven't already), but the WP:Consensus (what consensus could be determined, especially with regard to WP:MEDS) was that it should stay mostly dominated by human sexual activity and/or retain its article title. It's also why this note was placed on the article not too long ago. For me, the main reason I objected to a title change is that the term "sexual intercourse" is mostly used in reference to humans, and non-human animal sexual activity already has other articles. I didn't much care if the article was expanded with more non-human sexual activity, and I even suggested it. I just don't see the need to split the article into "Sexual intercourse" and "Human sexual intercourse," just as I don't see any good reason that Anus was split off into Human anus (there isn't much in the Anus article and the split therefore looks artificial, which I may get around to commenting on later...eventually). I can better understand why Penis and Human penis was split, though. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Section break: Partially on-topic/mostly off-topic[edit]

I agree, "sexual intercourse" is used to refer to human sex and "copulation" or "mating" to animal sex. I also don't think we need separate articles for separate types of anuses, lol. Surely we could just have an article where the lead explains what an anus is and then there is a section on human anuses and one on other types of anuses?

I was wondering, I am kind of in need of a neutral party or two at a discussion I am having over on Talk:Child destruction. An editor who comes across to me as potentially having some ownership issues reverted my edits and so I left a polite comment on the talk page explaining my edits and asking what he has issue with and how can we fix it, etc, see: Talk:Child destruction#Why were my edits reverted? Basically he hates every single change I made, claims that "they make no sense" and doesn't seem to want me to have any input in the article. He has already left me 7 replies (so far) over the course of less than 2 hours (at this point I still haven't replied yet). I can just see this going in a bad direction, so I was hoping that some other editors might join the conversation to help keep it from escalating, without having to make a big deal out of it or get formal help with the situation. Right now it's seems like he's telling me I can't edit the article and he will just revert any changes I make, and while I don't have any huge personal attachment to that particular article, I don't agree with his reasoning or approach and I think it's non-constructive and unwelcoming. MsBatfish (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a split of the Anus article if it warranted it, say along the lines of Brain and Human brain.
Do you still want me to state something at Talk:Child destruction? I see that you got some advice from User:Vrenator and mentioned that James500 has implemented some of your edits. I would have suggested something similar to what Vrenator did -- to just try and work it out with James500. And if that doesn't work out, to take it to some form of WP:Dispute resolution. I have had run-ins with James500, and I have seen that he is very protective of the articles he has significantly contributed to and/or created (as am I in most cases), but he does sometimes take it to the point that it can be termed WP:OWN. I try to keep from interacting with him when I can. I don't feel that he's a bad person or anything like that; I just don't need the added stress. I already feel that he has made too many law articles around here too United Kingdom-centric (just look through his contributions and you'll see). And he either doesn't take and/or comprehend criticism of his edits too well. See Talk:Murder#badly written article, for an example. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It's ok for now. I have just been trying to avoid saying anything yet. After he made 7 replies in less than 2 hrs (and still seemed to not get my point) I figured maybe he needed a few days to cool down. Child destruction is not severely in need of improvement and I don't think that leaving it the way it is is going to do any harm to readers, so I think I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia. Also this incident seems to have spurred him to start making edits to the article himself - including some of the ones that I made which he reverted and later claimed all "made no sense" - so I have to remember that the most important thing is improving Wikipedia and not my own ego. I think perhaps he just wants to be in charge and wanted to justify his revert after the fact, as opposed to admitting that he could have done anything differently. Many people would rather do or say anything than admit that they are imperfect or a decision they made wasn't 100% justified, so it's not unusual.
I might post one reply on the talk page, basically for posterity as a record of my stance on the subject and my thoughts on working cooperatively and welcomingly and it not being helpful to use arguments along the lines of "I don't like it", as I think it sets a bad precedent to let people "get away with" needless reverts and rude unhelpful explanations. If I don't respond I am worried it will come across( to anyone who happens to read the conversation) that he "won" and proved himself right. So, if I do say anything more, I will try to be as polite as possible and I'll let you know so you can look it over and maybe intervene if he replies uncivilly or the discussion gets out of hand. Would that be ok?
As for anuses (lol) and things like that, I agree with you, in that separate articles are not needed unless there is substantial information on both the human version and animal versions. Sometimes I think Wikipedia has too many articles and quantity seems to be favoured over quality. I don't understand why there are so many one-sentence or one-paragraph articles or articles on subjects that I don't really think are notable. Like does every song ever written need it's own article, or every sports team that has ever existed? But it's so much harder to get consensus to delete an article after it's been created than it is to create an article. Personally, I think that a lot of problems with Wikipedia would be greatly reduced if we required people to register before they can edit, and make a few edits (and/or do some reading on policy) before they can create a whole new article. Especially the former. MsBatfish (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be okay.
As for all the articles Wikipedia has, that's a plus for Wikipedia...per WP:NOTPAPER. It can cover much more than traditional (aka paper) encyclopedias. And everybody has their tastes. What may not be of interest and/or notable to you is of interest and/or notable to someone else. And with notability at this site, what matters is whether or not it passes our WP:Notability guideline. It's actually not that difficult to get articles deleted if they don't pass that guideline. But that guideline (which is more like a policy, really) is open to interpretation in a way...which is why we can have such extensive debates about an article's notability even among long-time editors. I understand what you mean about one-sentence or one-paragraph articles, but, if the topic passes WP:Notability, it gets to stay. The whole point of creating such articles (though I'd never create a stub, at least not a one-sentence or one-paragraph stub) is that the creator (most times) hopes that it will be significantly expanded. And if it's truly notable, it should be able to be significantly expanded anyway (except for in cases where we don't have much information on a notable person because that person is just so private/isn't very famous, etc.). And, yeah, I've expressed the same thing about not letting IPs edit at all; most of the vandalism/other problematic edits are made by IP editors, in my experience. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


(undented) Actually what I meant by "not notable" was articles that I think don't meet the Wikipedia notability guideline, not articles that I don't personally find interesting. But I disagree that it's usually quick and easy to get un-necessary articles deleted. It's easier to create an article than to delete one. I've seen deletion discussions go on almost endlessly. And the notability guideline is definitely open to interpretation. I've seen editors argue "it might be proved notable some day". Or people think that just saying something is notable is enough and forget that we have to prove that with references. There is a back-log of deletion discussions (and redirect deletion discussions, etc). I know that it costs little to have millions of articles, but that doesn't mean that every article is necessary. And personally I would definitely not create a one-sentence article either, even in the hopes that it might be expanded sometime in the future. It's not a dictionary. I think another related problem is that often I have seen, say, 5 different short articles all on the same basic topic, that could really be all in one article. Sometimes I can't help but wonder about the motivations of the editor, for example when it is on a controversial topic and they just title it slightly differently and fill it with biased information.

I wonder if there is any centralized discussion anywhere on a proposition to change the policy to not allow unregistered editing? MsBatfish (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

But I didn't say that "it's usually quick and easy to get un-necessary articles deleted" (though I have seen that a number of times as well). I said, "It's actually not that difficult to get articles deleted if they don't pass that guideline." No mater what silly claims people make in deletion debates, those claims should be disregarded by an experienced closing administrator. And, in most cases, they are. "Notable some day," for example, is not a valid "keep argument" whatsoever and any closing administrator should know that. Deletion debates are supposed to be about the weight of the arguments, not only about the headcount. There can be a deletion debate full of "Keep" votes, but the closing administrator should know to delete the topic if it is not notable. I agree that not every article is necessary, but Wikipedia prides itself on almost every topic having an article here...as long as it is notable, necessary, and is not WP:DICTIONARY content. It wants to be the encyclopedia people come to for quick reference or for anything that cannot be found elsewhere, certainly not to the extent (meaning with as much comprehension) that it is found here.
Proposals for the dis-allowance of unregistered editing has been brought up more than once, but has always been turned down by User:Jimbo Wales and some others. But look at the bright side; unregistered users cannot create articles, or edit locked articles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another section break (just cuz this is a really long conversation, lol)[edit]

Yeah, I figured as much (about Jim Wales and others not supporting required registration), but I was interested to know whether they was a way editors could voice our opinions for the record. So that people (including the founders, admin, etc) could at least roughly gage the level of support.

I think that Wikipedia in theory (what should be done, or how policy/guidelines/essays "should" be interpreted) is different from Wikipedia in practice. I am not a "deletionist", but nor am I am "inclusionist". There was an [article in the Monitor] a few years back which sums up a lot of the issues regarding trivial articles and deletion discussions on Wikipedia, and not much has changed since. The only thing I noticed which I felt was inaccurate in that article is that the writer seems to think that "notability" is mainly determined by number of Google search results. Unless the notability guidelines were vastly different back then?

There are a lot of things that frustrate me about Wikipedia, especially some of the behind-the-scenes interactions. But the fact remains that its articles are widely read, come up in the top of most search results and many people assume they are all fact - whether they should or not, or whether I like it or not - so I can't help but want to help improve its content for that reason alone :-) MsBatfish (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I wouldn't say we needed another section break this soon, but it is your talk page.
The way to voice your opinion about this is by going straight to Jimbo's talk page and starting a section about it. A lot of users (currently over 2,000) watch his talk page and plenty of issues are worked out there.
No, I've been here since 2007 and I don't believe that Wikipedia has ever based notability on Google search results, although users often bring up such search results in deletion debates to gauge how notable a topic is. But my point is that our WP:Notability guideline has never been based on that, I don't think. But, if you don't already know, that The Economist article is also listed on my user page. I found it interesting at the time I listed it there, mostly likely for all the same reasons you did.
By the way, I saw you edit the Cracks (film) article (which is a film I watched about a month ago and enjoyed, though it also angered me), and recently the Zoophilia article. Plateau99 is a big advocate of zoophilia on Wikipedia and has tried to get it listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and its template. See Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 2#Zoosexuality and/or Template talk:Sexual orientation about that. I see that he has gone right back to adding his desired text to the Zoophilia article, not significantly long after the article was unlocked. Oh well. I'll let others handle that. I have enough stress fending off zoophiles when they show up to the Sexual orientation article demanding that it be included too, or fending off pro-pedophilia POV pushers at the Pedophilia article. Oh, and thanks for deciding to watch the Pedophilia article and reverting whatever just isn't right. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it hadn't been that long since the last section break, lol. (I just like not having to scroll down endlessly every time I reply or if I hit "show preview" while editing & then add more).

I didn't realize you had that news article on your user page, lol. Funny :-)

I felt the same way about the Cracks movie. I liked it but it also angered me. I was also kind of annoyed that Netflix listed it under "Gay and Lesbian Dramas". I found that potentially offensive.

I figured the best way to include the "sexual orientation" stuff in the Zoophilia article was to say that some zoophiles describe themselves that way. I don't think it should be listed as a sexual orientation. I think it's very important to have articles not be POV, but at the same time avoid "undue weight" on POV's that are not widely accepted. I saw that Plateau wanted to change words like zoophile and bestiality everywhere in the article to zoosexual, so I thought a compromise to help prevent him/her from claiming that was necessary was to put a mention of the term, where it was commonly used and by whom. I have no problem with POV's that I don't personally agree with in Wikipedia articles, but it is frustrating when someone appears to have an "agenda" or edits an article to exclusively reflect their point of view. Unfortunately this seems to happen a lot. Even with mainstream views - sometimes editors want no other views mentioned at all, which isn't cool either. I've had discussions where editors argue for their POV, forgetting that whether they, (or even the majority of editors), personally agree with something is not what determines whether it should be included in an article. I've had editors assume that I must believe the minority POV (or whatever POV they didn't personally agree with) simply because I said it deserved to be mentioned, and base all their arguments on why they believe it is wrong. This even started to happen at a discussion at Talk:MMR vaccine controversy recently. I guess because people can and do have "agendas" and try to make articles reflect their own POV's some editors now immediately jump to the conclusion that this is what everyone is doing. But even in cases where that (when an editor has a strong POV that is unduly influencing all their edits) is what's going on, I think it's best to stick to arguments about policy pertaining to what should/shouldn't be included in an article, as opposed to trying to prove to the person that their POV is "wrong". MsBatfish (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Cracks is listed as a lesbian film on various sites. I suppose people feel that it fits under that category better, since it has to do with same-sex attraction among females. I can see how one would be tempted to call Miss G (Green) a pedophile, but she didn't at all seem into the younger-looking girls. She was all about Fiamma, who looked older in appearance and definitely seemed more mature. Judging by the other girls not knowing Miss G could be into young girls, it appears as though Fiamma was the girl she first pursued. Either way, I was uncomfortable watching it, which I believe is what the creators wanted me to feel. And toward the end, I was just pissed. Going into the film, I'd hoped it would be similar to Loving Annabelle...which I wasn't too uncomfortable watching (perhaps because the girl is 17, just a little away from 18)? In fact, I feel comfortable admitting that I enjoyed the chemistry between the two female leads in Loving Annabelle. It's a favorite among many for a reason. When it comes to movies, I can watch just about anything...but stuff like Cracks makes me think "What a crappy world this is." I saw chemistry between Miss G and Fiamma as well, but it was more of a "Fiamma really hates this wench and it's really radiating off my screen" type of chemistry.
You already know I understand what you mean about POV issues. I also understand about not telling people their POV is wrong, although that is difficult when facing pedophiles on Wikipedia (I'd have no problem saying so in real life). On Wikipedia, I always refer to what the medical/scientific consensus is on pedophilia or what society's general feelings on it are. The same goes for zoophilia (zoosexuality, whichever term they prefer). I don't tell zoophiles that they shouldn't feel that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation. I point to what the consensus is among researchers about what sexual orientation is and isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I just read that long conversation you were having at the Pedophilia talk page under "Bias". Wow. Just wanted to say that if I'd seen it sooner I definitely would have stepped in to back up what you were saying. Sometimes it can be tough when it is just one against one. The other person can just tell themselves that you are crazy and must be the only person who disagrees with them. I'm glad Noformation stepped in and agreed with you. Sigh, sometimes it just doesn't matter what one says or how long one goes on explaining things in detail, some people will just never even get it. lol :-)
I know what you mean about telling people one disagrees with their POV in real life, I just meant I think it's not usually very useful in a discussion on Wikipedia about article content. Like if someone is arguing that something shouldn't be included because they don't like it or they don't agree with it is not a very convincing argument. But people can't rationally argue on matters of policy as much (although they often do, lol).
I wouldn't say Miss G in Cracks was a pedophile either. I would just call her crazy, lol. I'm not even entirely sure if her interest in Fiamma was really that sexual or romantic, more like wanting to be Fiamma (or who she thought Fiamma was), or perhaps just being jealous of her and not wanting her to leave since she (Miss G) couldn't. Perhaps Fiamma reminded Miss G of some idealized version of herself at that age, with her future free ahead of her and Miss G projected all kinds of stuff on her. I'm not sure. And then there was Di, who appeared to have a crush on Miss G, but it was unclear whether she would have acted on it physically if she had the opportunity, or if it was just the usual kind of girl/girl crush that many women who identify as heterosexual have. It was also kind of unclear to me whether Miss G was actually truly a lesbian or not - it's possible that she was just lonely. Although there was some suggestion of some dark secret in her past when she was a student at the school, which I assumed might have something to do with her doing something sexual with another student. But I may have just been reading that into it... Overall, it was still an interesting movie. I have to admit that I'd initially hoped it was going to be about a forbidden lesbian romance. I liked Miss G before her craziness started to show. But I also felt sorry for her. It might have been interesting if they had delved more into what the secret in her past was, like what was it that made her the way she was?
I don't think I've seen Loving Annabelle - I'll check it out. I think I have the same philosophy about movies as you. Although I have to admit sometimes some super-mainstream American movies irk me. MsBatfish (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, having backup helps. And in disputes on Wikipedia, it's all about having more than just two people arguing against each other. It's nice to know that you would have assisted as my backup; I appreciate that.
Very interesting thoughts on Miss G. I never even thought about the fact that she may not even truly be into females romantically/sexually (even though I'm someone who stresses that sexual activity/interest does not always equate to true sexual orientation), but what you stated makes sense. Situational sexual behavior does exist, after all (I definitely need to significantly expand that article, by the way). I'd thought Miss G was likely sexually involved with a teacher when she was Fiamma's age. Oh, and I whole-heartily agree about Di.
Loving Anabelle is a decent film. Okay, it's a good film (great to some), but I never finished it. I get the gist of what happened at the very end, though, because I saw parts through a music video of some sort...maybe. I can't remember. I just remember that I got the gist of what happened at the very end, and then I didn't feel the need to watch the rest. But I likely will soon, since it was just brought into this discussion.
Feel free to email me any time. I'm not good at checking my email, and I feel I need to email an editor back about a private matter we were discussing months ago, but I've been getting better at it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Lucid dream[edit]

re this, I think we should choose between either "seem real" or "be realistic". "Seem realistic" sounds redundant. Something is realistic when it seems real. Right? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Personally I think "be realistic" is the best out of the choices. "Seem real", to me, sounds more confusing, as it could be taken to mean that one thinks that the dream is real. And technically it's the memory of the dream that is more realistic than normal dreams - we don't really have any way to know if the actual dream is more realistic, all we have to go on is people's memories of their dreams. But I don't think it's really necessary to get that specific, do you?
Another possible option is "feel realistic" or "feel real"... Let me know what you think or change it to the one you think is most clear. MsBatfish (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And this: "Dream control has been reported to improve with practiced deliberate lucid dreaming" — is it possible to phrase this differently? It's confusing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The source was referring to when people have lucid dreams on purpose (as opposed to spontaneously), and when they practice doing so repeatedly, they can usually get better at controlling aspects of the dream. Is there another way you can think of to say this that you think would be clearer? Thanks :-) MsBatfish (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Joining a WikiProject[edit]

I just saw your note from back in October at WT:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. One joins a WikiProject largely by showing up and participating. With a semi-active group like that, you might consider some of the actions suggested at WP:REVIVE. In my personal opinion, the last item (#10) in the list, which is about keeping an eye on the WikiProject's talk page and replying to other posts, is probably the most important. An appearance of activity often leads to the real thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much WhatamIdoing. I will do that. MsBatfish (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoophilia[edit]

User:Someone963852 is continuously reverting our edits to the zoophilia article; your input on the matter is appreciated (see Talk:Zoophilia) -- Plateau99 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Prostitution in Chile
Hawkes Ocean Technologies
Prostitution in Egypt
Rape by deception
Prison rape
Derek Llambias
Me to We
Prostitution in Malaysia
Prostitution in El Salvador
Victory Park, Pasadena, California
Verdant Power
Prostitution in Saudi Arabia
Prostitution in Ecuador
Esquimalt people
Peters Band
Prostitution in Tunisia
Semi-vegetarianism
Sumata
Andrew Lindsay
Cleanup
List of Nairs
Stillaguamish people
International Monetary Fund
Merge
Estonian mafia
Group sex
Catholic sex abuse cases
Add Sources
Sanky-panky
Prostitution by country
Marital rape
Wikify
Prostitution in Panama
Prostitution in Belize
Yuki Tanaka (historian)
Expand
Squamish history
Donna M. Hughes
Ages of consent in North America

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project[edit]

Aloha!

My name is Victor and I work with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. We're chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade new people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I find stories that drive our annual fundraising efforts. It's important to convey the incredible diversity of people who've come to rely upon Wikipedia every day.

I see that you have an interest in human sexuality. That is an immensely important topic to be contributing to! I'd really like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia.

I'm hoping you will elaborate on your story with me, either over the phone, by Skype, by Facebook, by email, or any means you like. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project and we'll set up a good time to discuss further.

Thank you,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi Victor,
Why'd you say "aloha"? Could you somehow tell that I was in Hawaii or was that just weird synchronicity?
I would be honoured to participate in the Stories project. Let me know what you need from me (like do you just want a paragraph explaining why I got involved with Wikipedia and my experience or what exactly?)
Thanks! MsBatfish (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi MsBatfish, Thats hysterical! I say Aloha because of all greetings its the one with the BEST baggage, people seem to feel warm and fuzzy when they are greeted with an ALOHA. So mark it up to weird synchronicity - anyhoo - I'd like the chance to interview you on the phone or on Skype if that's ok with you - My schedule next week is pretty open, I'm on pacific time. I need to send you a release waiver for you to sign, and email back to me for us to continue. Do you have an email i could reach you at? mine is vgrigas@wikimedia.org. Thank You for your interest in participating! Victor Grigas (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Victor, I'll send you an email.
I would really prefer to do it by email if possible. That would be a lot easier for me. Is there a reason you would prefer phone or Skype?
Thanks,
MsBatfish (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: I like synchronicity and I agree with you about Aloha :-)

Talk:Yerba mate[edit]

A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Yerba mate#Requested move: ? Ilex paraguariensis. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mate (beverage)[edit]

A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Mate (beverage)#Requested Move: ? Maté. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Icaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quechua (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) 12:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Limits of Control, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (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) 14:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)