User talk:Kevinbeds

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Pussing. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Gwernol 20:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "facts"

As Judge Judy would put it, don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. Give us objective criteria to base the notability of the term on. You can't use the statistics of a website called "pussing". We have no way of knowing if the statistics are real or not. Again, please use objective criteria next time you want to assert the notability of your article. Danny Lilithborne 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat - I ONLY PROVIDED WEB STATISTICS BECAUSE THE COMMENT MADE BY SOMEBODY ELSE CALLED THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATS INTO QUESTION. It was probably you. I had no intention whatsoever to provide website statistics, especially as the original comment about my entry was that the source was an external website, which is why I deleted all reference to it. If you can tell me what objective criteria you are looking for I WILL GLADLY PROVIDE THESE if I know how to. If you know how to, why don't you do it?

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 12:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gwernol. I do hope you have sent an identical message to Danny Lilithborne!Kevinbeds 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly different one, but yes, I warned Danny on his talk page also. Gwernol 13:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pussing

Can you please provide some reliable sources to show that this is not made up? Shouting louder and louder that it exists is not convincing anyone. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you are stepping out of line. Comments like "if they have any, which I am seriously beginning to doubt" are offensive personal attacks and if you continue to make them you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I ask you again to remain calm and civil.

It is very important that you understand that verifiability is an absolute, inviolable cornerstone of Wikipedia. Quoting from that policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You have not provided any reliable sources for the activity of Pussing. Until you do, the article will likely be deleted. Please read the verifiability policy carefully. Note in particular the simple idea that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Until your article reaches this threshold none of the other arguments matter.

You may find this unfair, but it is the definition of what an encyclopedia is. There are thousands of free and low costs web hosting companies where you can write an article on Pussing if you want to. Thanks, Gwernol 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. You have overlooked the exclamation mark at the end of my parenthesis about other people's sexual activity. Have you never heard of humour? 2. It cannot be expected that reputable sources, as you call them, are likely to publish articles about a secret sexual activity breaking a taboo. If they did, their reputation would be called into question. 3. I did add what I considered to be a reputable internet source to the original article but the very first complaint was that this was an adult website, which is why I removed it, even though the website is non-commercial and non-profit making. 3. I have never asked anybody commenting to supply a source so I don't see the relevance of your point 3. 4. I do not want to write an article on pussing; what I was expecting is that Wikipedia would embrace developments in language, society and culture and be a pre-eminent reference source for such developments. I was clearly in error and, to be frank, now have an extremely poor opinion of Wikipedia. 5. I am not shouting louder and louder; I am simply trying to respond accurately to each point which is made. If you want proof that it exists, just search for it on the internet. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be on so many independent webhsites. Or, to put it another way, why would websites seeking traffic in a highly competitive environment include pussing as a search term if nobody knew or did this? You talk about verifiability, not truth, but you yourself seem to be doubting the truthKevinbeds 07:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, posting my response to the AfD page was inappropriate, at the least without first asking my permission.

To respond. Please note that it doesn't matter whether you considered your comment humorous or not: it was offensive and you should refrain from making comments like this.

If Pussing does not have reliable sources it cannot be in an encyclopedia. Reliable sources are not the same as reputable ones. Please read what I wrote carefully. I am genuinely trying to help you understand. An encyclopedia reports things that have happened and been reported elsewhere. That is its only function. It is definitely not about being the pre-emininent source for new developments in anything; its about reporting what has become established. I have never expressed any opinion about the truth of pussing. I am happy to believe it exists, but you can't verify anything you wrote, so it cannot be in Wikipedia. Gwernol 12:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that Pussing is already mentioned in Wikipedia under Urolagnia, that it is included in the Urban Dictionary (www.urbandictionary.com), listed in Sex Lingo (http://supervert.com/shockwave/sexlingo/view) and has its own website (www.pussing.co.uk) containing reports from people who have done this, I believe this begins to give ample evidence of the activity reported elsewhereKevinbeds 11:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your request at the Mediation Cabal

Just FYI, I've responded to your request. Here's a link to the case page. I hope I can find some sort of happy resolution, for you, or at the least that I can help you to understand what's going on. If you have any questions, complaints, rants, or concerns, you're more than welcome to bring them to the MedCab case page, or to my user talk. Thanks for your time, and happy editing. Luna Santin 06:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]