User talk:86.8.54.48

January 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Lip— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Struck above message in manner prescribed by Wikipedia guidelines due to explanation. Donner60 (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A message has been left at the bottom of your talk page, thank you for your message. 86.8.54.48 (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You write well in opposing censorship and expressing your opinions. I appreciate your relatively reasonable exposition although your accusatory tone leaves a little to be desired and I am not sure what "problem" you might be referring to. I assume it is not a threat. You may not be aware that such random references are usually non-constructive and intentionally so. If you think every non-constructive edit should be individually explained at length, I must assume that you are not familiar with the hundreds of such edits placed in Wikipedia at all hours. The purpose of these is quite clear and explaining why the random insertion of the word penis into an article is nonconstructive would be of little use.

Your edit certainly appears to be of a similar nature since fellatio has nothing to do with food intake. I will assume that you are not using this as a soapbox or to be provocative, neither of which would be useful since the audience is likely to be quite limited. Getting to the substance, your edit had nothing to do with food intake, the section where you placed it. There is a section in the Lip article entitled: Erogenous zone. The opening sentence of that section covers the matter in general terms. One can click through on that linked term, and others, especially additional links in the erogenous zone article, if one wishes to follow up further. There is an article on fellatio which states that it is an oral sex act involving the use of the mouth or throat. I suppose lips are part of the mouth but that is wandering farther afield. I do hope you use your obvious writing talent to add constructive edits to Wikipedia in the future. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. I have replied on your talk page, but concede to your argument that my edit was un-constructive due to its inappropriate placement, but I wish to assure you that this was unintentional. Please see the section on your talk page for further exposition. Thanks. 86.8.54.48 (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and generous response. I know it is difficult to put something into writing about which one has an opinion, especially a strong one, without unintentionally giving the wrong impression. I now think my response also should have been better written. Please understand that I have been reviewing recent changes for over three years and have received a few mostly reasonable appearing comments, but ones that contained a few innuendos which escalated into something more nasty upon even a bland reply from me. (Perhaps not the best of reasons.)

I often have seen disruptive edits placed in odd spots in articles. Reversion of such edits rarely receives any response, much less a reasonable one. My user page and talk page have been vandalized 544 times, far outnumbering reasonable commentary. I actually do not care about that since I just increase the number in the user box about vandalism and move on. Such persons usually get blocked rather promptly as they often do not give up on disruptive editing or harassment in the face of warnings. I acknowledge that occasionally I have misinterpreted edits and will reverse my position when my mistake is pointed out to me or even when I see a reasonable position. In that spirit, I am striking my original comment in the manner prescribed by Wikipedia guidelines.

I sometimes do leave special messages, explanations or links to Wikipedia pages but I judge whether to do that by the nature of the edit. That is sometimes affected by the fact that the Huggle program only displays the change, not the entire article. When I think I should pull up the entire article, I do. Rarely, I find or am told that I should have looked at the entire article. If I had done so here, I could have just referred you to the erogenous zone section. I would not oppose an edit to that section if a "matter of fact" one were made so I will not hold you to your statement about editing the article if you still feel strongly about it. That is with the caveat that I cannot know or control how other editors would react. I am sure this is more than you needed to hear from me. I thank you for your patience. Again, I hope you will continue to contribute as my compliment was meant sincerely. Donner60 (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, I believe the article sufficiently covers the topic within the erogenous zone section. Thank you for discussion, it makes a pleasant change to other interactions I've had with editors who have disagreed with me! 86.8.54.48 (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

---