User talk:Atomaton

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom, and use descriptive headlines when starting new topics.
(Leave a new message)

Archive

• April 2006 through September 2006 • Archive 1
• September 2006 through January 2007 • Archive 2
• September 2006 through January 2007 • Archive 3
• February 2007 through March 2010 • Archive 4

Breast

Atomaton. You have accused me of vandalism. I reverted as did you yesterday a non consensus nonencyclopedic pic for the article. I also was in the process of returning the consensus version of the picture when you reverted. Please be careful about what you call vandalism. I 'll assume you didn't realize I was re adding the picture that has consensus.:o} (olive (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

I did not accuse you of anything. I clicked on the vandalism button on my browser to revert because you had put in the text "Cheyl Jones.jpg" which is a non-existent image. The consensus image is :File:Closeup of female breast.jpg, which I put back into the article. I can see that it was an honest mistake on your part, and not vandalism. I suppose you had intended to put "Cheryl_Jones.jpg" which is a valid image, but not one that we have had a consensus on in the past. Atom (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No Atomaton. I didn't add the Cheryl Jones picture. I reverted yesterday as did you to the consensus version which is in place now once again, and was in the process re adding the consensus version again when you added it. Your edit summary says vandalism and I'm not excited about that term in terms of my editing. Please check the edit history so you know who did what. Yong Ping34 added the Cheryl Jones picture yesterday as well as today. [1] Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

My apologies. Here is the edit I saw, [[2]] I can't change the edit summary, or I would. I did not say anything on your talk page making such a claim. Atom (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

Anal Sex

Good job with the new additions. I couldn't be more pleased. - Stillwaterising (talk),

March 2010

You insist on adding information to this article which is either directly copy-and-paste or reworded by one or two words from this page. I see that you are a trusted editor with rollback status, but if you insist on continuing this, I will have to report you to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. I did not originate the article. I am in the process of removing any copyrighted information, as apparently are you. I have assumed good faith, perhaps it would be good for you to do the same? The article is barely a half an hour old, why not wait a few hours at least, or until other editors are done reworking it before you evaluate whether copyrighted information then exists.

Best to you, Atom (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Global Bell curve

My edit summary was poor. The book might be notable, although the article gave no sources to support that. I think the main problem is the OR summary. Given the contentious nature of the book's arguments, which many would find offensive, I think it has to be treated as an unsourced negative BLP (although here a race rather than an individual) and deleted on sight. The summary of a book like this has to be based on an RS. I'm not prepared to recreate, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was only a few (two) days old. It had issues with copyright by the contributor which I fixed. Since it was a stub article, and so new, naturally it lacked citations. The author is notable, and has a substantial article on Wikipedia. The Book "The Bell curve" is very notable, with a large and well cited article on Wikipedia also -- although very controversial. This article "The Global Bell curve" is a follow on to that book with more recent analysis and research (from what I can tell). The topic of both books are controversial. I don't advocate anything in either books. As an editor it is not my place to judge the book, but to make sure that the Wikipedia article is factual.

What bothered me about your actions was that I and a couple others had worked hard to dutifully ensure that the article was not a copyright violation, and succeeded, only to have it swept away a few days later, making me feel like my time was wasted. Had there been a speedy delete discussion, or a notability discussion I could have discussed that the topic of the book and the author are notable and well cited within Wikipedia. I wasn't given that opportunity, nor was anyone else. If the article had been say, a year old, or six months old and were in the same stub state, with no one spending effort to improve it, that might be a different thing. However, even then I would have expected following the normal proposal for deletion process. Atom (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncalled for Editing

Atomaton -

First: I do not know you, but your widescale recent alteration of my recent contributions suggests that you have an issue with seeing naked males. Can I suggest that your own sexual or moral limits should not be imposed on others by your multiple attempts to delete images that show naked males. You justified one such revision as being on the the grounds of the image being "not good quality" Get a grip man, it's not a photo, it's a drawing. Will you be continuing your quest by deleting Impressionist paintings next? I suggest as a general principal that where there currently exists an imbalance of images, for instance females masturbating but no males, that any reasonable image is better than none in the meantime. Please respect the rights of others - Wikipedia is not here to adapt itself to your own personal tastes or dislikes.

Second: You erroneously, and in a defamatory manner, suggest that I VANDALISED a page. It seems from your history log that you suggest I inserted the words "get niggas horny" on a page. Let me tell you this just once - I have never, and will never, vandalise any pages here. The language you wrongly attribute to me is abhorent, and I can only only assume that it was placed maliciously and with the sole intention of discrediting either myself or Wikipedia. I also note that this is not the first time you have accused others of vandalism in odd circumstances...

In summary - please respect the contributions of others and do not make false accusations. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration, not a battle ground.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus Artisticus (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The first issues you speak of, where you added images to various articles, is a simple one. You did not discuss adding an image to the article in any of those articles. The image was of poor quality. The images did not, in my opinion add anything significant to the article I don't think it added clarity to the topics for an average reader. I would be happy to talk about that on an article by article basis. I am fine with bringing in other editors to get their opinions on the photo.

You may not be aware of it, but to an experienced editor, a new ID, adding one image to many articles with only a tenuous connection to the topic stands out like a big red flag. I edit many sexuality articles, and so I have several hundred sexuality articles on my watchlist. When suddenly a poor image pops up in many articles that I monitor for quality, it stood out. When that image is a very poor image of a man sticking a dildo in his ass, that stands out more. It is not that uncommon for men to try and upload images of themselves to the Wikipedia commons site and try to add it to articles.

Your second issue. As far as I know I have never accused you of anything, or even discussed anything with you before. My browser automatically adds the tag when I report a vandalized article. I do recall marking an edit of some page where someone put in the language you describe -- I found it here [[3]] What the edit summary says is that I reverted the vandalized page to the previous version before that, which happened to be a version that you authored. The edit summary (automatically generated) does not say that you made the edit. It says that an Anonymous IP 24.140.88.14 made that edit. So, you are mistaken in your rather unfriendly comments about me above. And your unusual comments about me accusing others of vandalism I have to wonder about. I revert many, many changes to sexuality articles every day. None of them are accusations of any kind, just simple reversions. Most of them things like these [[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]] We have a policy here called "Assume good faith". That and a number of other policies might be worth studying, as you are a new editor. I understand that it all can be confusing, but please assume good faith first. Others to review might be Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I look forward to you adding valuable contributions in the future, and if I can assist you in that, please feel free to ask. Atom (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Having noticed the above discussion I looked at the edits in question, and I am 100% in agreement with Atomaton. The images are of very poor quality, and since Atomaton has left other images of naked males in place the suggestion that it is done because of "an issue with seeing naked males" makes no sense at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Atomaton. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit Warring about Sexual Orientation

Hello, Atomaton. Seems you're trying to inveigle me into an edit war about the Sexual Orientation article. Nope, won't work. You want to make the POV of the article into biological determinism; I want to label the viewpoints and achieve NPOV. We have no common ground there. I'm responding here merely to say that you can have whatever POV you want to have. I won't argue with you; I have other things to do. Have fun with it. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ephebophilia article

Hello, Atomaton. In case you are no longer watching the Ephebophilia article, I just wanted to let you know that I originally reverted you, because as I stated in my edit summary, "Teenagers dating teenagers is not ephebophilic, even if one is a legal adult. And at those ages, of course most teenagers' sexual preference is other teenagers." But I reverted myself, because your edit was not saying that exactly (even though your edit summary seemed to be saying that), and your edit is correct regarding legal matters. It would be better to add a source for that, though. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

reorganization and lead-trimming proposal

I've drafted a reorganization of the whole sexual orientation article, including slimming the lead. But it's long and I don't think pasting just an outline will suffice. It's also a bit older; it doesn't include all the subsequent edits to the live (nondraft) article of the last 1-2 weeks or so. Where should I post the whole article for discussion about organization? Thanx. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected: added article title. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You could post the proposal on the talk page, and then create a new page and point to it, maybe like Talk:Sexual_orientation/Draft?? Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kettle, my aren't we black?

"why a good number of his recent edits seem to be oriented towards posting nude .jpgs and obscene .oggs at the tops of various sex related articles without discussing the images' use on those articles' talk pages?" Is not a Personal Attack. I want to know why you're adding images without addressing them on the Talk Pages, as doing so suggests a subjective point of view, rather than the NPOV that Wikipedia requires, and even suggests that because you are part of those Wikigroups that you think that somehow this gives you Ownership and you can act unilaterally while hiding behind claims of censorship if anybody questions you.

WP:SPADE "Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review."

On the other hand, "You should not project your personal issues with shame or nudity onto others." is a Personal Attack. You shouldn't assume that my issues with the image on the phone sex page are somehow shame related, and that does violate WP:NPA. My issues with the images in question is not their nudity but their relevance, and I even stated that much on the Phone Sex talk page.

I did not refer to the nude image as obscene, I referred to it as NUDE. The .ogg I referred to as Obscene is the animated image sequence of a young man ejaculating; an image that was made along with several others by the subject in the subject's bedroom with the subject's webcam for what I can only conclude are subjective (Exhibitionist - ie: I want to get my Pee-pee on Wikipedia!) reasons. As I recall the history of this particular image, the subject had several that were deleted because they were quite a bit more blatantly exhibitionist, and this one was a last desperate act to get his orgasm onto Wikipedia just a hair's breadth within the letter of the law. I have certainly seen documentaries and read books on human sexuality that have shown men and women orgasming on camera without feeling like the subject has somehow forced me to share in his or her sex act, while this particular image most certainly feels like a violation of that barrier between myself and the subject which borders on rape and is the reason that openly masturbating in an open public place is considered legally obscene. There are more scientific and objective images that could easily be used in place of that one.

I didn't ask why you added the picture, I asked why you added the picture without discussing it as there was already a Talk relating to the picture and an apparent consensus to remove that picture as it doesn't actually have anything to do with Phone Sex, as discussed on the Talk Page of that Article. Taking an image off of the article that it is only tangentially related to is not censorship, and the fact that you think it does tells me that your interest doesn't lie in bettering the article, but rather posting as many nude pictures as you can get away with and claiming censorship when people object for any reason, which tells me that in fact you are the one with hang-ups with regard to normal human interaction. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what your current issue is. As far as I can see there is no image on the phone sex page. Lede images are good for a page, and a page with no image is usually improved by a good image. The one for the phone sex article was marginal at best -- I agree. It was not directly on topic. That is why removal of the image hasn't been contested by anyone. I think it was a good faith effort in the past to have something visual to represent the article, even if it was not ideal. My adding it back was the same motive. As for the image on the ejaculation article. I don't believe I had anything to do with putting that image on the page originally, perhaps only restoring it after others took it off? The topic has been well discussed on the talk page of that article. As there is clearly consensus for it to remain, I don't see any reason to discuss it further here.

If you felt that my comments about personal shame issues were over the line, I apologize. I meant no offense. Many people have such issues and I have no problem with that. My comment was meant to indicate that if you were one of those people that trying to influence others to feel shame about nudity wasn't appropriate, not a criticism of someones right to feel that way. My apologies to you for that comment. If you do not have such issues, then I don't see how the comment is a problem.

For the record, I feel no ownership to any article. My mention of being an active part of the WIki Project for Sexology and Sexuality was only intended to answer your question as to why I seemed to edit many sex related articles. Just as some people focus on religious articles or sports articles or video game articles, those of us in that project focus on improving and stopping vandalism on Sexology and sexuality articles. I am sure you have a preference for the type of articles that you work on to.

Lets work together in the future to improve the quality of Wikipedia, and to stop vandalism and censorship. Best to you. Atom (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree drop the issue then and focus on improving the site. Best in your future editing endeavors. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to User talk:Closeapple#topfreedom

Hello, Atomaton. You have new messages at Closeapple's talk page.
Message added 09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

editing another person's Talk post

A message offered privately to you and Slrubenstein: I gather this is sometimes acceptable to WP but I disagree. I don't think one person's Talk comment should be edited by another except for legal necessity for which WP can be held liable. Maybe there's another exception I'd agree with, but this doesn't seem to fit. I don't know if Slrubenstein noticed it and accepted it. As things go now, I already look for talk replies by tracing diffs, which is cumbersome but seems to be the only reliable way to find replies. For writing, I suggest instead the method used in some emails and forums: describing or copying the passage to be replied to when not intending to reply to the whole. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Mainly corrected a link and added another: Nick Levinson (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected newer link: Nick Levinson (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atomaton. You have new messages at Talk:Anal sex.
Message added 22:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comment about photos Stillwaterising (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

that semen image has been RfD'd, again

I see from its talk page that you have been involved in quashing past attempts to censor images associated with the Semen article (and, judging from your user page, others as well) and thought you might want to share your view, yet again, at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Semen2.jpg which is currently running 3-2 in favour of deletion. Sigh.

(I am actually a registered editor, but as my username is the same as the name of my food blog, I thought it would be best in this situation to avoid giving anyone the wrong idea, or, as has been known to happen on the internet, wind up having someone overly invested in an edit-war situation cyberstalk me over to the food blog and vandalise that with inappropriately sexual comments. I'm aware that my IP address can be matched to my username, but I have faith that anyone who knows how to do that knows better than to harass me off-site.) --76.209.175.51 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I have made those changes because, I believe Religion and sexuality#Buddhism does not give a correct idea and enough details to the readers about the subject.Buddhism is a philosophy which is well over 2500 years old.So it has also undergone the process of changing.(According to Buddhism everything in this universe is in a process of changing). So now there are various traditions and schools of Buddhism.What I tried from my edits was to give an overall idea to the readers on the subject of Religion and sexuality#Buddhism.

I am a Theravada Buddhist(I believe it is the purest form of Buddhism in the present time).According to Theravada Buddhism (one of the major and biggest schools of Buddhism),my edits are correct and the Theravada view on sexuality is vastly neglected in the current article. This is the Layperson's Code of Discipline in Sigalovada Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

According to you 'extramarital sex and premarital sex are absolutely not inherently regarded as sexual misconduct'.Sorry but it is wrong,absolutely wrong.In Theravada Buddhism it is clearly stated for a lay person sex with a woman who is protected by her mother/farther/brother/sister/Husband/Son/Relatives/clergy/guardian and sex with a servant of yours/those who entail punishments/... is sexual misconduct.(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.nymo.html). See also Five Precepts#Elaboration.

The sentences in the article which states "Buddhism does not go into details regarding what is right and what is wrong within the mundane activities of life. Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct is not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures"..... and "In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form, does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers"......... are incorrect.I have used 'that list of things' to include above listed, in a simple short way.Buddhism does not go into details about sexual activities like in some other religions ( Example :Anal sex is prohibited in Islam ),but Buddhism clearly states with whom you can and with whom you can't have sex if you are a lay person.

Sexual intercourse being one of the downfalls, out of four major downfalls (Murder,theft,boasting about super human abilities are other three) that could end a monks or nuns career is true in most of the Buddhist schools including Theravada.It is not a concept in small sects of Buddhism. I have given Japanese Buddhism as a notable exception too. I have used the term chastity instead of Brahmachari life simply because more people understands the first term than the second.

Finally,details in your user page suggests me that you are a big fan of sex ( i don't have any problem with it because it is a personal thing).But simply you have to understand the fact that, we can change our ideas according to the religions and philosophies, but we can't change religions and philosophies according to our ideas.

Regards. Shehanw (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir: Thanks you for your careful explanation of your perspective. First let me say that I have no doubt that you have a better understanding of Theravada Buddhism, and probably other branches of Buddhism than I, a Lay person and Zen Buddhist have. I recognize that when I place the point of view that I have gained, based on my understanding, research and reading of Buddhism I am not trying to exclude any other persons perspective. Also, much of the wording we have discussed that you disagree with is not my opinion, nor did I originate those in the article. I welcome your insight, input and interpretation. We must be careful to document the reality of Sexuality and Buddhism rather than giving only our own or some small view. When someone put in "Buddhism does not go into details regarding what is right and what is wrong within the mundane activities of life." I believe it is meant from the context of Buddhism as a whole, and not meant to say that nowhere in Buddhism are their teachings about such things. I think more broadly they meant that fundamentally, Buddhism is not a judge of our behavior and has no "rules" or dogma regarding such things. Your point that different sects have different teachings about sexuality though. Within the right context, those teachings should be expressed within the article on Sexuality and Buddhism. What is important to express is that one can be a Buddhist and find enlightenment without any of those teachings, or without following those values and ways if living. Buddhism is not about rules, or a code of behavior. Buddhism has no Catechism.

When you suggest that "I am a big fan of sex" I think that you mean well, however perhaps you mean it as a gentle chide. I realize that my attachment to the exploration of sensuality, sexuality and sexology may appear to be a negative thing to most monastic Buddhists, and even some lay Buddhists. Of course it is not their place to judge me or my path, they have their own obstacles to deal with. It is my view that sexuality from a broad scope is a large and difficult issue for all people for all societies and cultures. Even Monastics who have the view that complete avoidance of the sensuality is their goal wrestle with sexuality issues regularly. Understanding and helping others to wrestle with that is something important for me. Of course we all seek enlightenment, but I am not here on this earth to escape the cycle, I am here to help alleviate the suffering of others as they find enlightenment.

It is my belief that Buddhism, generally is the most open of religions in that we do not feel the need to evangelize or to try and change the path of others. We are accepting of all people of all other religions regardless of how well their personal or sect philosophies align with out own. They, after all are human, and endure the same cycle of suffering, in a world full of joy and beauty, and yes, sensuality that everyone else does. So, my personal philosophy is less nihilistic, and more humanistic in approach while remaining roughly within the bounds of Buddhist philosophy.

To address your issue more specifically. You act as though the teaching of past and current Buddhists has some weight or importance. Of course we respect teachers and those that we can learn valuable lessons from, especially if our goal is to gain wisdom and find enlightenment. However, as far as I know, no school of Buddhism has articles of faith, or anything comparable to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No school or temple of monks or nuns has control or authority over their laity, or the capability to "ex-communicate" their laity. It is fair (and in fact the purpose of Wikipedia) to give citations of references to notable documents regarding the ideas of Buddhism. But it should be in the context that all of these are nothing more than the teachings of previous Buddhists seeking enlightenment.

It would be fair, in my opinion, to break down the various schools of Buddhism and what their prevailing thought and opinion may be regarding sexuality. Since there is no uniformity of interpretation, nor an overriding authority giving one view prominence, the more citeable vies that can be expressed, the better.

Chastity

You sai, "I have used the term chastity instead of Brahmachari life simply because more people understands the first term than the second."

Well, as I said previously, I feel that the term chastity is nor completely appropriate, as for most people the term chastity means sexual expression within "allowed" parameters, and not, complete abstinence from sexual expression. The Hindu term Brahmacharya means something close to that, however Buddhist Monks and Nuns completely abstain from sexual intercourse under all situations, which is not really the same as either of those terms.

Downfalls

You said, Sexual intercourse being one of the downfalls, out of four major downfalls (Murder,theft,boasting about super human abilities are other three) that could end a monks or nuns career is true in most of the Buddhist schools including Theravada. It is not a concept in small sects of Buddhism."

Of course the size of the sect, or its prominence are meaningless. One can find enlightenment many ways and their is no true path, or single path. Before Gautama Buddha there were no schools of Buddhism.

I am certain you have more knowledge in the area of the four downfalls than I have. It was my understanding that breaking any of the many vows one takes as a Monk is very serious, and that all of them are important. And that a Monk could be accepted back into the Sangha after some period of time regardless of the "infraction". Even so, that person is a Monk, and continues to seek enlightenment regardless of the size of Sangha they choose or remain in. What I am saying is that the rules of a sect regarding Monks is local and arbitrary thing that only determines their ability to be accepted within one group of Buddhists. By referencing these rules within Wikipedia, we can give an idea of the values of a particular group of Buddhists, and that can be done. But we should not give someone the idea that *all* Buddhists agree on those things, or even that those things have any importance of any kind outside of the context of that Sangha.

Extramarital and premarital sex

As for your reference to the five precepts, please remember that we are talking within the context of this article on sexuality and Buddhism. So we are specifically addressing the "Sexual Misconduct" aspect, and not the other four precepts. Within the five precepts, sexual misconduct may be interpreted at the level of each individual follower of Buddhism. Their is no authority of any other Buddhist or group of Buddhists that may tell him/her what that must be. Yes, there are the teachings of many other Buddhists, past and present to offer perspective, but those are not in any way binding to the lay Buddhist. As you pointed out, "Buddhism does not go into details about sexual activities like in some other religions ( Example :Anal sex is prohibited in Islam ), but Buddhism clearly states with whom you can and with whom you can't have sex if you are a lay person.". Which, of course, really is a teaching about whom one should not have intercourse with. "with whom you can and with whom you can't" is not really correct. Buddhism does not tell us what we can and cannot do. Its only purpose is to offer guidance towards following enlightenment. Things that will help, or hinder that are taught. If a Buddhist lay follower or even a monk chooses to not follow a teaching, there are no repercussions. The worst than can happen is if a Monk breaks a vow (different from not following a teaching), which can at its worst cause him to be asked to leave his monastic community.

You said, "The sentences in the article which states "Buddhism does not go into details regarding what is right and what is wrong within the mundane activities of life. Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct is not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures"..... and "In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form, does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers"......... are incorrect.I have used 'that list of things' to include above listed, in a simple short way. Buddhism does not go into details about sexual activities like in some other religions ( Example :Anal sex is prohibited in Islam ),but Buddhism clearly states with whom you can and with whom you can't have sex if you are a lay person. "

More accurately, the citation you give is for one community of Buddhists in the past, and their perspective/retelling, from the Pali Canon, on what Guatama's view was on various things, including sexual misconduct. From the Pali Canon, "Abandoning misconduct in sexual desires, he becomes one who abstains from misconduct in sexual desires: he does not have intercourse with such women as are protected by mother, father, (father and mother), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also those that are garlanded in token of betrothal." I believe that the Pali Canon is extremely important in the Theravada tradition. My view is that this should be in the sexuality and Buddhism article, expressing why Theravada Buddhists have the value that incest and adultery are sexual misconduct. It should not be construed to say that "Buddhism has this view" though, nor that it is anything more than a teaching by Buddhists. That is, it is not in any way enforceable upon Theravada lay Buddhists, but teaches what other Theravada Buddhists believe to be sexual misconduct.

Also note that this does not discuss premarital sex at all (but incest), and only discusses intercourse with a woman who has a husband, which is Adultery, and not extramarital sex. Many people would say that sex with her husbands consent would not be sexual misconduct. Interpreting it to mean "extramarital" sex would be exactly that, up to the interpretation of each individual Buddhist on their own conduct. I respect that your value, and perhaps many other Theravada Buddhists may interpret it to mean extramarital sex. In the Wikipedia article, discussing (in the context of Theravada Buddhism) that these guidelines exists in the Pali Canon, and letting other interpret the words as they choose seems appropriate. Generalizing it to say that All Buddhists believe that premarital and extramarital sex is wrong, or even that all Theravada Buddhists felt that was the case would be incorrect, in my opinion.

Layperson's Code of Discipline

" This is the Layperson's Code of Discipline in Sigalovada Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html "

Well, of course, the title "Code of Discipline" is itself a misnomer. This Sutta, a teaching like all other Suttas, is a story, an oral history passed down for three hundred years before being written in the Pali Canon, and is a teaching of a discourse between Gautama and a householders son Sigala. He says that the evil of adultery the wise never praise. It is obviously a teaching, and not a proclamation of rules. Guatama makes no mention of incest, premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality or masturbation. Again, it seems fair to explain within Wikipedia that Theravada Buddhists share the value that Adultery is not wise, and not a good thing. If there are references that can be cited giving broad interpretations from other Buddhists about what Guatama Buddha meant, that would be better for the article than your or my or some other editors interpretation.

Buddhism and Sexuality talk

There is a lot of discussion going on here that is relevant to the article in question. Please, bring it to the talk page so we can all share in this debate. The Theravada view on misconduct is briefly spelled out on the article but the Mahayana and Tantric views are missing. The view that there is little guideline is also a valid POV and I don't see a need to keep the article short.

Much of the Pali is held within the "Āgamas" and along with what the Pure Land Sangha in St. Louis said about rape and adultery must have come from an "Āgamas". I am learning from this editing experience and am hoping to see the article improved. Alatari (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a little information on other perspectives within Buddhism would benefit the article. I feel that the "Religion and Sexuality article" should be a brief overview of the "Buddhism and Sexuality" article, which should have more detail. That detail should remain focused on the topic though, and should limit general information about Buddhism to only necessary details, and defer to the main Buddhism article on that, or other spur articles from Buddhism for other things (like details about Mahayana Buddhism, etc.)

I'm glad to assist you in expanding the article, even if the view you propose does not happen to be my own. According to Wikipedia standards, having a neutral POV does not me amalgamating all views into one, bur rather, breaking competing or opposing or alternative views into separate sections even if they do not agree. The challenge for me, and for you would be that expressing one POV could be easily done, but then trying to express alternative views also to balance the article when we are not familiar with them well, or do not understand them is difficult. But, we can still do the best we can do, and let others come along behind us to improve it from there.

The challenge is that since Buddhism has no central authority, and the thoughts of the smallest Sangha are as important (or rather unimportant) as the largest ones, sticking with teachings of the major traditions may be best. Expressing that these teaching are not rules, but rather are guidelines for living life is important.

Yes lets discuss this on the talk page. Perhaps if we start anew with a common goal of improving the article? Atom (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For some reason my watchlist didn't report your response. I am bi and want to know the depths of support and opposition to different sexual behaviors in Buddhism. Do not construe my edits as counter productive. The tree will strengthen with the bending and in this case my push for better sources will strengthen the article and my understanding. I very much want a solid basis for saying that "homosexuality is not a religious consideration." I'm assuming you have better sources and reading list but I will do a source search also. Alatari (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal beliefs and NPOV

I'm looking at a blank page for 10 minutes trying to formulate words. On the political ideology quiz I am 4.5 out of 5 to the left on social issues. I think you are a whole lot like several of my other friends. I hold NPOV as the prime directive while editing WP. If that means I have to argue for the conservative viewpoint when I don't see it represented... then I do. Contact me at http://www.facebook.com/stevelsmith?ref=profile if you like. Alatari (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to step on your toes. I don't have Facebook, unfortunately. The NPOV policy does not mean that one should be neutral. I work to make sure that both, or all perspectives are fairly represented in an article. There are a number of articles that I work on where I bring in viewpoints that are not my own, but need to be documented. I often try to document the opposite perspective, I was aware that you have a liberal ideology, and so I have wondered at some of the positions you have espoused. Perhaps that is what you have been trying to do. Atom (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have taken that dialog on that sentence from .. Higgins? sermon up on the Sexuality and Buddhism page or the Incest page not the LGBT page. It could have been interpreted as me being a conservative warrior trying to reduce gains of the community. I am extremely embarrassed by the lapse of my Christian upbringing slipping the 'sin' word in. Alatari (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• grumble* This source uses Sins to describe the precepts. I thought my mind wasn't totally wasted. Is it bad translation or an attempt to communicate to Christians? The Sin article's lead reads "In religion, sin is the concept of acts that violate a moral rule" which seems to allow one to call violating a precept a sin. Should we add ...moral rule set forth by the diety? Alatari (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not doubt that somewhere, someone has used the term in Buddhism -- as you say, perhaps to bridge the gap with Christians.. It just seems alien to me to see the word "sin" in the context of Buddhism. I'm sorry to have stepped on your toes again.

On another note, the conversation with you has led me do some meditation and a lot of reading about the many sects and their views. Honestly I am surprised at the diversity, and some of the beliefs. Atom (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an old religion so I'm not surprised at the diversity of interpretations. I still haven't found a home temple and this is part of my shopping. Yes, I know this can be done completely alone but I need some structure since under my management my life is a bit chaotic. Alatari (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidences of Third Genders from across the world

Hello Atomaton.

May I draw your attention to the page on Third Gender. It has cited mentions of existence of third genders from all across the world, from Asia to indegenous Americas to Europe to indigenous Australia (Polynesia). Masculinity (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I am quite familiar with third gender. I am not sure why you bring this to my attention? I looked at recent edits of mine, and found that in one place, Human male sexuality I did a reversion because of some uncited changes. I have not modified the Third gender, Hiraja article, or the Transgender articles lately. If that is the reason you discussed third gender, please be reassured that I am not debating whether third gender exists or not, I was reacting specifically to the changes an anon IP made to the article that seemed very POV, and was uncited. In accordance with NPOV, alternative opinions such as were expressed are welcome, however they should not be to change the existing POV, but as an alternative POV, and then still should have citations.

• First was the addition of "across the non-Western world, from Asia to the indigenous Americas to Africa and indigenous Austrailia, as well as in ancient Europe" which is hard to follow, as Americas and parts of Europe (ancient or otherwise) are part of the "western world". (Australia misspelled)
• Second was "While there is no division on the basis of the Western pattern of sexual orientation, there is a strong division of the male population on the basis of a world-wide and age old phenomenon (unlike the Western practise of 'sexual orientation') called 'Gender Orientation,' as " Which is poorly written with Sexual orientation mentioned twice. Sexual orientation is not a practice or a theory, and is something completely different from gender orientation which I assume the editor means gender identity.

All in all with the start of the edits being an anon IP, and the poor phrasing, it feels like some person is "winging it" with their own opinion, rather than citing research or a news story. My comment was that is sounded uncited, which I think is probably the case. Atom (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll correct this. Thanks for pointing it out.(Masculinity (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

A documentary maybe you would like

The Dhamma Brothers showed on our PBS station last week and it was very heartening. PBS World has had a documentary on Buddhism every week since March. Alatari (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial currently scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

Discussion,

Could you please point to it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Meetup

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 31 October 2010
	Time: noon
	Place: Midtown Exchange Global Market, East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 44.9493°N 93.2612°W / 44.9493; -93.2612

New meetup

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 20 November 2010
	Time: 1:00-3:30 (click here for full agenda) R.S.V.P. by Nov. 17 for free lunch + parking
	Place: Minnesota History Center 345 Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, Minnesota 44.95°N 93.1055°W / 44.95; -93.1055

Arbitration request on Ejaculation photos

As you are aware I filed an arbitration request with regard to the four-plate ejaculation photos. Just notifying you as per process.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ejaculation Photos and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

re Bukkake

Regarding "Please give e reference for the word only being used in the context of pornography..." Um, that's not how it works. It's not generally possible to prove a negative.

Let me give an example. If I insert in into the article George Blanda the text "Blanda was a prima ballerina for the Madrid Ballet during the Tulip Craze and is believed to be responsible for starting World War II", it's not up to other editors to find a citation showing that this isn't true; it's up to me to find a citation showing that it is true. You see the difference?

I'm sure that you do. So let's not be silly, OK? Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm well -- if you add into the article (as you did) "is a term used in pornographic productions", this implies that it is not used elsewhere. My edit was to focus on the definition of the word, rather than implying that it is limited to use in pornographic productions. For you to say that, you would need to supply a citation that said, effectively, "The term is only used in the context of pornographic productions."

I am not saying that it is not used in pornographic productions, but rather avoiding that altogether (especially as later in the article it discusses the use of Bukkake in such productions). My focus is on defining the terme "bukkake". Does that make sense?

The fact is the term is used in many contexts, not just in pornographic productions. As it is the first thing discussed about Bukkake, some people could think that the term is defined, or unique to such productions.

I have no problem with you suggesting that in one context the term is used in Pornographic productions -- later in the article.

As an active member of the BDSM community, and friends with many people who are swingers, I can assure you that the term is used many places other than pornographic productions to talk about activities between consenting adults outside of the realm of pornographic productions. Atom (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You said "if you add into the article (as you did) 'is a term used in pornographic productions', this implies that it is not used elsewhere."

Well, that's right. It's not used elsewhere. If it was, there would be a reliable source saying so. But there isn't.

I'll tell you what. Since you are holding that references are required to prove a negative, I'll make a deal with you. You add the wording you want to Bukkake, and I'll add the following text to BDSM: "Persons involved in the BDSM community exhibit a remarkably low general intelligence." If you can provide reliable sources showing that this is not true, you can remove it; otherwise, you'll defend it. Fair enough?

As to your personal anecdotal information, we really, really do not consider personal anecdotal information from Wikipedia editors to be reliable sources. For instance, we do not allow editors to use statements such as "Jews are swindlers, I can testify to this from my personal experience" as sources for statements in Wikipedia articles. OK? (Additionally, and I hope this is not news to you, but being "an active member of the BDSM community, and friends with many people who are swingers", does not - how to put this - inspire me to leap from my chair shouting "By Jove, here I have found a person of obvious high moral character who must certainly be a paragon of veracity!".)

Look. We both know what's going on here. Assuming that your statement regarding your personal predilictions is true, this explains the situation, does it not? It shows that you have an extremist point of view. I can see that you are a long-term editor and I suspect that you know perfectly well that contended statements of fact require a reliable source as defined at WP:RS and are deliberately ignoring this in order to advance your own personal political or social agenda. My advice to you would be: don't do that.

(I don't hold wanting to advance your cause against you. Be my guest. But not here. There are other venues for that, but this is not what the Wikipedia is for.)

I really don't think this is something that you want to continue to edit war over. I mean, you don't even have bad source; you don't have any sources, that you have revealed anyway. So I don't see how this could end well for you. But it's your call. Herostratus (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotal information is meant to show that your stated view of things differs from my personal experience. The intent of course, so that you will realize that your viewpoint might need to be re-examined. You'll note that my personal anecdotes are not in that article, nor are they in any other articles I edit.

I never asked you to prove a negative, I only asked that if you are asserting the statement "The term Bukkake is only used in the context of pornpgraphic film making" that you provide a reference to support that assertion. Otherwise, I suggest that the term "bukkake" is used in the many places that it is used. By people within our culture refering to the activity.

I am not sure what you mean by "extremist point of view".

And, as for "edit war" I am not sure what you mean. Unless you plan on trying to force your view.

You changed the article to make the article about a pornographic genre. The article was, and should be about the topic itself -- that activity that occurs that some people choose to film. You act as if it is a topic for filmmaking, but not something that people actually do, or have done. Certainly you can't believe that to be true?

You asked for a reliable source for usage of the term outside of pornopgraphic videos, and I gave you one in the talk page. Atom (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I did not see the thread over on the article talk page, and I will respond to that over there. As the other... I am not asserting that, in human history, this has definitely never been done, even once. There are few things that are humanly possible for which that would be true. However, the question is of reliable sources showing this to be prevalent at a notable level in any populations. But you say you have a reliable source over at the article talk page, and if this is true, that would be different, of course, so I'll go look at that over there. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are correct that their is a paucity of reliable sources on the topic. It is my opinion that the act itself has happened for a very long time. The term coined for it is recent, and there has been virtually no research on it. The primary usage found on the Internet, as you have sugegsted, is related to pornography. Atom (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Formatting quotes

How's that? Please respond here, on your talk page, I've got it watchlisted. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 06:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well -- I thought it was fine the other way. I guess your method is fine. If it bothers you enough to change it, it must be important to you. Atom (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, those long boxes go off the screen for me, as well as being something that catches my eye as a formatting error rather than something that serves to highlight text. And, um, I'm probably just a little OCD... :) Dreadstar ☥ 17:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! As you may have noticed, I seem to be good at leaving lots of typo's. I can use all the help I can get. Atom (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atomaton. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 08:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Atomaton! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality in the United States

I noticed you have provided some good contributions to the article on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Recent bold edits (discussed here) have offered an opportunity to improve it, particularly with regard to its incredibly obscene WP:LENGTH and lack of WP:NPOV. I'm hopeful you can return to contribute once again. Thanks. --Meitar (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Don't know if you noticed, but that issue is being discussed at ANI here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle

Hi, just to let you know, I've responded regarding my huge edit at the article's talk page. Looking at your interests and edit history, I think we should be able to reach agreement on this fairly easily - the reasons should be obvious when you read my reply, I hope. SP-KP (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBCOM about recent AN/I

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation request for WP:HARDCORE

Hi, since we seem to not be able to resolve our disagreements over this page, I've asked for outside help, here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore images. Assuming you're agreeable (you need to go to that link and sign on), we can move on from there. Herostratus (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, First, I'd like to address the issue where an editor brought up your essay in ANI, and that ended up with a move of the page to your user space. I didn't see where you had been notified, or had responded before it was moved, which I felt was not appropriate due process. At least others hearing your viewpoint before a decision was made would have been good. Although I do think that if you want to control the essay, it should be in your own user space, I felt that you should have had your say before the page was moved.

If the article remains in your user space, I don't have any desire to change or modify it, as it is your opinion, and your work. If it is a general discussion on Wikipedia, to help us resolve the general issue that you have discussed there, then I think, like all other Wikipedia policies guidelines, essays and working products, that a consensus of editors should do the work, and it not be controlled by one person.

You may have noted the previous work I did on this is, related but not identical in nature, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines four or five years ago. I point this out to indicate that my interest is on the topic of finding appropriate guidelines, and not in causing you or any other editor difficulty.

Probably you and I will not likely come to agreement on what types of images are correct for Wikipedia, as you seem to feel that practically no sexually explicit photos should be used, as you label anything that is sexually explicit as some type of pornography, regardless of the context of its use. I feel that Wikipedia is not censored, and should not be censored, but an article should only uses photos that benefit the article and can make it better at that topic. An explicit image often of any type has a better chance of being descriptive than words, or a hand drawing.

What we can both agree on, I think, is that it would be nice if there was a policy or guideline that all editors could use to more clearly identify what images were appropriate for Wikipedia. In that way if an image met such guidelines, it would not be subject to constant attempt to remove or censor, merely because it was controversial. This would benefit all editors across the spectrum.

As it is now, it seems like a constant battle to maintain perfectly normal images. Even an image as pure and simple as the lede photo on the pregnancy article, one not even the least bit sexually explicit or even sexual in nature is the subject of such attempts to remove. The other extreme, that Wikipedia would become filled with non-appropriate very sexually explicit images and videos of many types of pornography is something we all will not let happen. The issue is, that each image needs to be judged individually, since the context of where or how it is used determines whether it is appropriate for an article, or obscene in some way (A repository for porn, as Jimbo Wales says). The fact that it is sexual, or that it displays a certain kind of sexuality, or that it is explicit in some way, can't by itself determine if the image is appropriate or not. In all of the discussions and all of the guidelines we create, the word pornography" is not useful, because it has no stable meaning. It is too subjective, and varies depending on the content and where that content is used and how it is used. Trying to just ban all sexually explicit images altogether fails in that we lose the educational value that many artistic, educational and scientific images can bring to an article. Also, there are many other types of offensive images that should be higher on our priority list. Images with extreme violence or hate speech or racial or religious intolerance are more important for us to discuss and avoid than sexuality images any day of the week. Images that seem to promote harm to others, versus an image that is just about two or more people and their skin in some position or another.

Clear guidelines allows us to focus more on improving the quality of Wikipedia as editors, instead of endlessly rehashing whether the image in the penis, breast, or ejaculation article should be there or not. Generally, in any article.

Here is where I discussed this issue with Jimbo Wales when he censored Wikipedia Commons.

In regards to your mediation request. I have no desire to interfere with you in any way if you want to make a personal essay about something you feel strongly about within Wikipedia. However, if you want to work with others to help discover ideas, define and then create guidelines on images within Wikipedia, then you will need to allow all editors across the spectrum on the issue to participate in that process, otherwise they will not support the end result. If you felt that there was very little spectrum on the issue (that it was very polarized -- something I do not feel is the case) then creating an essay regarding the topic, and then sections for the major viewpoints on the issue, and let people contribute by enhancing the position or positions that they promote. Trying to offer one view, and block all editors who disagree with you from editing is not functional.

So, I think your mediation request is moot. In a nutshell, If you let it remain in your user space, then I intend to not interfere with you in any way in offering your opinion. If you put anything in main space regarding this topic, more than likely I will offer my viewpoint and opinions on the matter, for what little that is worth.

I have no desire to force, or coerce or cause problems for you for any reason. If I cannot persuade others to change their viewpoints by using words, then I have and always bow to the consensus on Wikipedia. If you would like me to participate in your mediation so that it will give some kind of clarification to an issue within Wikipedia, then I am happy to offer my viewpoint and opinions. Atom (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have read what you have written. Your refusal of mediation tells me all I need to know. Herostratus (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I agreed to mediate, if you felt it would add something meaningful. As soon as the article is back in main space, let's move forward on that. What made you think I "refused"?Atom (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your statement "I think that there is no need for mediation" at Wikipedia talk:Hardcore images#Mediation. The article is back in main space. If you agree to mediation, you need to go to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore images#Acceptance of Mediation and sign on . Then we have to see if a mediator accepts the case. Since there is quite a circus going on right now at the page, it is possible that 1) the case won't be accepted, and 2) mediation just between you and I would be difficult, given that many other editors have decided to work on the page at this time. Not impossible, however, and one option would be to wait a bit. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Yes the page is quite busy. As you are letting others edit the article, I don't have any issue. I am glad that the article is back in main space, I was not happy with the way that all occured. You should have at least been given the opportunity to give your view before any decision was made.

I am not sure what issue you would have to bring to mediation. We have discussed the edits I suggested, and it appears that others have come behind me and made fairly similar changes. I wish you best on expressing your point of view. Atom (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Atomaton. You have new messages at Seedfeeder's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AN3

Atomaton, please see AN3 discussion here. Thanks. --JN466 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Atom (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bukkake article

Hi!

User Jayen seems to be of the opinion that I have been incivil with you in the Bukkake article. I assure you that I welcome your participation, whatever your viewpoint, in that and any other article. Although I may state an opinion that differs from yours, I respect your unique perspective. SO, although I don;t think I did anything untoward, please accept my apologies if I have offended you in any way. Atom (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding whether on of the images shows the woman in bondage or not, I offered an opinion that it did not seem that way to me, but merely that she has her hand behind her back, perhaps supporting her weight. I don;t see how whether she were in bondage or not is pertinent either way. It shows her sitting on the floor, and naked, neither of which are necessary for the act of Bukkake. Havinf other information in the image would only be a distraction. I can certianly agree that given two similar images, the one that most accurately represents the topic without distractions should be used. Regards, to you, Atom (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Atom, I expressed only my opinion. Each person has the values and his faiths. I do not support the pornographic images. I am for the abolition of this type of image in Wikipedia. It is a part of my Jewish culture and my personnal faiths. But however said Wikipedia:

Articles about hardcore pornography subjects should not contain images which are, themselves, hardcore pornography.

Because: These articles are mostly about obscure sub-genres of pornography. The point is, these are not vital articles. They are marginal articles, and any images in them are therefore images in a marginal article.

On the other hand, in return for the debatable encyclopedic value imparted by these images, we have that:

• There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to host these images. These few images are among the most contentious materials hosted on Wikipedia, degrade Wikipedia's reputation, create a political vulnerability for Wikipedia, and drive away readers (including women; Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help).

• It is not a good thing for young people to be viewing these images. Other images on Wikipedia may also be problematic, but these images are especially problematic since they depict extreme sexual situations, and they depict events that occur in pornography but not (at a verifiably notable level) in real life. A picture being worth a thousand words, this point may be lost on impressionable viewers.

• Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women, and this is by intentional design, since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women. While it may be appropriate to display images depicting the degradation of women in certain historical or sociological contexts, its not appropriate to use them in what is a least a borderline "fanboy" context. Wikipedia should not propagate misogyny.

(reference : Wikipedia:Hardcore pornography images

Thanks and Shabbat Shalom with your family, Merci et je vous souhaite un bon week-end avec votre famille, תודה ושבוע טוב --Geneviève (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Should preference for frot over anal sex be a subsection of the Sexual practices section?

Your comments on the the placement of the section on the perception of frot and anal sex among MSM would be very much appreciated. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Atomaton: Hi there! I'm NicholasTurnbull, your friendly mediator from the Mediation Cabal, a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation, discussion and advice from a volunteer. Someone's asked for our help, and mentioned you in the following request:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation, if you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out.

Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's absolutely fine. This is an informal mediation request and the Mediation Cabal doesn't sanction or discipline anyone.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of assistance. As you know there was no issue to mediate in the first place. Shortly after the request by the initator (misguided in my opinion) the page was removed from main space (by others) to the users personal page, and then shortly therafter, returned to main space by Jimbo Wales. That escalated the debate regarding the article which completely changed the debate. I never had any disagreement with the initiator regarding the article. I was just one contributor to the article (of many) who offered my opinion about different ways the point could be expressed. I really have no idea why he started a mediation when there was no dispute. Atom (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)