User talk:Dlloyd/Archive 1

If you are putting yourself in a position where you are acting to censure other peoples contributions, then please be prepared to clearly explain the reasoning behind your actions.

Kegel Exerciser

This article was deleted because the consensus on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion where it was listed for deletion said that it should be deleted. For more information see the deletion debate. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Leather Pride flag

For your information this is not going to be deleted. Consensus is to merge the two articles you created on the same subject together and to to redirect one to the other. Please bear in mind that anything you upload to wikipedia is done so under the GNU Free Documentation Licence, meaning that you cease to 'own' any of the material as soon as it is uploaded. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For your information I also find the statement that the leather pride flag is not notable rather an insult, which, if you'd actually read the deletion debate for it you will have noticed. Also I do not have an opinion on the kegel exerciser, I merely follow consensus when clearing away vfd debates that have gone past the five days; if the consensus on Votes for undeletion is that it should be restored, I will be happy to restore it. And please don't have a go at me simply because I'm the only person that's responded to you. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kegel exciser

Kegel exerciser Hi Rick,

Perhaps you could explain on what basis you deemed my 'Kegel exerciser' article to be an advertisement ?? The article has now been deleted.

I have discussed the 'Kegel Exerciser' article with a local author (who has a Phd in Human Sexuality). To delete the article based on the opinion that it's an advertisement seems absurd to me.

Thanks.

I didn't do anything to Kegel exerciser. I deemed Kegelcisor as ad ad, since it read as ad copy and was using a brand name. Rick K 18:35, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Deletions

If you were interested in your articles, you could join us at Votes for deletion to discuss WHY you think they should be kept, instead of just whining and making personal attacks. Rick K 06:00, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Rick,

Thanks for getting back to me.

I'm not making personal attacks here, just stating the facts as I see them. You deemed the article to be a product advertisement, even though it was contributed by a Wikipedia user and contained no links to external Websites. Fact. You did not attempt to contact me. Fact. Therefore the process to delete the article was based on your assumption that is was an advertisement. I did not join the 'Votes for deletion' discussion because I was not aware that the article was about to be deleted. If you look at the 'Votes for undeletion' page you will notice that one person commented that my article is of "nearly better quality" than the original 'Kegel excercise' article.

Dlloyd 07:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gastropods

Your 'Geological History' is a positive contribution to my article. Well done ! JoJan 16:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cephalopods

Ditto your additions and new articles. Good job! Care to try your hand at adding a taxobox to Belemnoidea? Also, on Ammonites, which of the suborders are under which orders? Once that is settled, we can pull out the overarching Ammonoidea information to its own article. - UtherSRG 23:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sea urchin article question

Great addition to the Sea urchin article. Please see Talk:Sea urchin for a question I have about its authorship and licensing status. Dpbsmith 11:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry I'm not quite sure I understand. I'm not M. Alan Kazlev, and the original article I submitted to the Web back in 1998 was written by me. It was published on my now defunct site www.fossil-company.com (The Fossil Company). I can supply you with a link to an archived version of the site if you wish. (By the way, the picture of Lovenia woodsi in the article on the site M. Alan Kazlev was copied from my 'The Fossil Company' site, as was some of the text....).

Dlloyd 11:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is a link to an archive of my original article from Apr 28, 1999:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990420022446/www.fossil-company.com/about_fossils/echinoids.html

I'd say Alan Kazlev "borrowed" from it extensively:

http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Echinoderms/Echinoidea/Echinoidea.htm

Dlloyd 11:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is my copyright statemant from the bottom of the original Echinoid article:

Both businesses are now defunct and were owned by me.

Dlloyd 11:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, it's clear you own the copyright. In a sense when you contribute your material to Wikipedia you are implicitly releasing it under the GFDL because of the notice on the bottom of the edit page, but I think it would be a good idea for you to explicitly say so here. Read Wikipedia:copyright#Contributors' rights and obligations. Then just put something here saying, in so many words, that you are "licensing this material under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Probably not necessary, but better to be sure. If you make more contributions of this material, and I hope you will, you may want to make up a little stock sentence saying something like "Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty that should do it. Dpbsmith 13:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this :-)

Should I add the copyright information to the Talk page for each article, or the article text itself ??

Dlloyd 00:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It should go on the talk page (here), not in the article itself. Articles themselves do not have by-lines or similar notices, because once it is contributed it can be freely edited—nobody has any "ownership" of the text and any statements about its origin would become outdated the first time someone edited it. Information about the article goes on the Talk page for the article. Dpbsmith 01:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello,

I have added the following statement -

"Portions of this text are :

"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this."

- to the talk pages of the following articles:

Belemnoidea, Goniatite, Nautiloids, Collecting fossils, Ammonite, Brachiopod, Crinoid, Bivalvia, Gastropoda, Coral, Sponge, Crustacean, Sea urchin, Trilobite, Graptolite, Plant, Starfish, and Trace fossil.

I hope this clears up any potential issues regarding the copyright of the text I contributed.

Thanks.

Regards,

DL

Dlloyd 01:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- Yes, that should take care of it. Dpbsmith 01:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Califia

What exactly has Califia to do with Teena and Araujo? Dysprosia 08:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Transphobia. Two of the above were victims of it, one of the above is an author who writes about it. Dlloyd 09:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you perhaps make this a bit clearer on the Califia page? Either I didn't read the article properly, or there was no text saying such, so I could make that connection.

On another note, would it be best to single just Teena and Araujo out? Did Califia write about those two cases specifically?

Dysprosia 10:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll certainly make this clearer on the Califia page. The connection between Teena, Araujo, and Califia to *me* is one of notability. Teena and Araujo are notable because both were murdered for reasons of gender identity, Califia is probably one of the most notable popular authors on gender identity issues. Califia wrote an article on Araujo. Dlloyd 10:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, good. But do you see where I am coming from? Many others were murdered or were otherwise victims of transphobia, but since Califia wrote an article on Araujo, this should be fine. Perhaps we should have the link to "Remembering Our Dead" or have a similar Wikipedia-based page, and then link to that? Dysprosia 11:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see your POV. The link between Teena and Araujo is far stronger for obvious reasons. Dlloyd 11:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult. I just want to understand where you're coming from. What is the link between Teena and Araujo? Dysprosia 11:54, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The link between Teena and Araujo is that both were murdered in the USA when their birth sex was discovered. The links between the Teena and Araujo Wikipedia articles were already in place before I edited the articles. Dlloyd 12:41, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I think everything's clear. The links between them perhaps should probably be properly qualified so this is clear, I'll do so. Thanks for your help again. Dysprosia 12:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two items

1. I wanted to commend you for your exemplary following of fair use--justifying, listing sources, etc. I just used a DVD cover you uploaded as an example for another user.

2. The proper way to archive your talk is to create a subpage, not have it in the article space. For example, you coud use User talk:Dlloyd/archive 1. Just notify me (on my talk page, please?) and I'll perform the necessary moving and deletion. Thanks, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:12, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

The move is done. If you'd like this to redirect to the archive, simply enter #REDIRECT [[User talk:Dlloyd/Archive 1]]. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:27, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Electro stimulation

This article was listed on Category:Pages_on_votes_for_deletion by another user, but not here. I am adding the entry here as a public service. Ground for deletion: not encylopedic? Stating the bleeding obvious (Warning: Under no circumstances, mains voltage (line voltage) should be used.) Sounds like an interesting way of going about Phreaking. Ianb 21:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

no vote; I'm just completing a vfd process here and have no experience with this particular leisure activity, although I did get an electric shock from a telephone socket once (though not to the genitals) --Ianb 03:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are other BDSM practices with their own articles , such as flagellation, medical fetishism, erotic spanking, and (ahem) figging :-(. I don't know why in God's name that they're in the Wikipedia, but so they are, and they're fairly complete. Electro stimulation would be in good company if it were turned into more than a useless substub. Keep? --Ardonik 02:44, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
I would say its non-encyclopedic if it weren't for the tons of other crap we have articles on. Still, rewrite or delete. -R. fiend 05:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I would say so too. In fact I will. Delete, unworthy of a separate article - this topic needs, at most, a brief mention in BDSM or some other bizzare-sexual-act-related article. Rdsmith4 | Talk 05:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I'm on record as opposing all those tiny fetish activities getting primacy of namespace on their specialist articles. When I was a kid, I used to lick 9v batteries. Now I know why, although I thought it was just because I didn't have any chile peppers. Geogre 13:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but cleanup/re-write/expand. With reservations. Merge ~~and redirect~~ to with Erotic electrostimulation. Ok, now that FZ has pointed out a third possible use of the meaning of Electro stimulation (Skeletomuscular electrostimulation), I think the most logical course of action is to make Electro stimulation into a disambig page. My thoughts on the validity of including the erotic/fetish subject of "electro stimulation" in Wikipedia: Looking at it from an anthropological point of view, this is a real practice of a BDSM/fetish subgoup, and there's an small industry built around selling sex toys that supply electrical shocks to the genitals. That in itself makes it notable. (And no, just in case anyone is wondering, I am not a participant in BDSM, nor do I engage in the practice that is being discussed here.). This subject may possibly be appropriate as a subsection of BDSM, in which case I will advocate a merge & redirect, but I adamantly oppose deletion on the grounds that in a NPOV publication like Wikipedia, the practices of significant human subgroups (including fetishists) belong. Why? Because they are legitimately part of the full spectrum of human behaviour, good, bad or kinky, regardless of whether or not some of the editors like or dislike them. (I admit I can't help but wonder... is the objection to this article because it is a kind of human behaviour that makes some people uncomfortable to know it goes on? Or, perhaps, are some people objecting because they disapprove of the behaviour?) Kevyn 11:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
WTF? Keep. Not liking or understanding it is not a reason to delete the article - David Gerard 12:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, David, has anyone in this debate expressed even a vague disliking of the practice or a mystification of what it is? You and Kevyn both make that allegation, but I only see people objecting to solitary break outs of articles that concern, at most, a few thousand people. From a marketing point of view, it's worth your money to make fetish gear. From an encyclopedic point of view, it's not nice to have each permutation of the human imagination grab a break away article. If it can't be discussed in BDSM or fetish, then it doesn't get discussed, IMO, because this name trips over non-fetish ones and because it's too minor. What would we do if a book sold as few copies as there are self-shocking BDSM folks? Would we include it? Geogre 13:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - That would be a reason not to bother writing the article - rather than a reason to delete an existing article - David Gerard 17:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - And yet, David, it seems that someone went ahead and wrote the article anyway, and now it's on VfD. Perhaps that's because it shouldn't have been written as a stand-alone entity. So far, everyone has been saying, essentially, "Discuss this in its logical place." No one has been saying, "Don't tell the world the shocking truth of shocking." Because a little foresight wasn't exercised, we now have a VfD debate. So you can draw your own conclusion about my devious designs, but I think I'm in favor of authors carefully considering where their interests go before they begin detailing them. Geogre 14:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Yes, Geogre, I do think that some editors have expressed a "vague disliking" of certain BDSM practices in this debate. Lucky 6.9 started his delete vote with "Eww," R.fiend described other, comparable articles as being "crap," and Rdsmith used the phrase "bizzare-sexual-act-related article" ... all of these are negatively loaded POV. Editors are, of course, entitled to their personal opinions about such practices, and I confess to having some negative opinions about BDSM of my own. But when it comes to deciding if an article deserves inclusion, I think it's important that we, as editors, remain dispassionately NPOV, despite our own personal likes or dislikes. As for your assertation that the name "Electro stimulation" trips over non-fetish uses, I think you may have a valid point. For instance, Cranial electrotherapy stimulation may be accurately covered by Electro stimulation. There may be others uses, as well. Electro stimulation may indeed be more suited as a disambig page than as a redirect page to Erotic electrostimulation~~, which is what I am voting for now~~. Kevyn 11:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - Well, Kevyn, I thought they were just being flip and trying to entertain others doing the voting. At any rate, I certainly haven't been against the information, and I don't think most have been, either. I think it has been about a solitary article on a topic that doesn't rise to the level of interest or uniqueness to require it. That's my view, anyway. I think we need to think of books, albums, songs, movies, etc. as whether they will be searched, whether there is enough to say about them to exceed stub status, and whether those who search for them will not know to find them by their allied topics. The reasons are both clutter and namespace concerns. Apparently, my feelings mark out some dastardly, new, and dangerous clique of fuddy duddies. (shrug) Geogre 14:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      - Geogre, I never singled you out as being against the subject, but I do sense that it makes other editors uncomfortable, based on their comments (my perception, of course). I confess to being especially sensitive to the "whitewashing" of sexual minorities, as well as being especially attuned to the danger of we, as editors, losing our objectivity as dispassionate chroniclers of the universe (which is, essentially, what I believe the function of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is) when it comes to "uncomfortable" subjects. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not this particular topic will "rise to the level of interest or uniqueness" to be included -- the existence of the lengthier article on the same subject, Erotic electrostimulation, which Ianb alerted us to (thank you Ianb) suggests to me that, while it is indeed of "niche interest," it's still matters enough to several individuals who have taken the time to research and write about the topic -- and that itself inclines me to keep the subject. Your concerns about namespace clutter are well taken, and that is why I have changed my vote to merging the content of Electro stimulation into Erotic electrostimulation, and then re-wroking Electro stimulation into a disambig page, especially given that now there are at least three topics (and possibly more) that could fall under that heading. (I also happen to agree with you on the way we treat books, albums, songs, movies, etc., but I don't feel that discussion is relevant to this one). Kevyn 11:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - I concur, there should be some kind of overarching article or disambiguation page- there's also skeletomuscular electrostimulation (whihc I'm going to get around to writing someday if someone else doesn't), used for treating injuries and neuomuscular disorders. -FZ 17:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      - Question: Isn't a form of "electro stimulation" also used in the field of animal husbandry for artificial insemination purposes? Kevyn 11:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        Yes, come to think of it. I'd forgotten that one. We definitely need to disambiguate here. -FZ 13:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
comment: there is a lengthier article on the same subject at: Erotic electrostimulation--Ianb 12:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok that scares me, but redirect and merge with Erotic electrostimulation The Steve 19:25, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
Delete and disambiguate. Guan aco 05:49, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Delete and disambiguate. I originally voted for deletion of this article. The information it contains is of no merit (see my erotic electrostimulation article). There needs to be a disambiguation page for the different types of electrostimulation (cranial, erotic, etc).

PS. I'd appreciate it if you kept your negative POVs out of this, thank you - just because you choose not to do something doesn't mean it's not worthy of contribution to Wikipedia. To pick a topic as an example, there are more Formula One drivers listed in Wikipedia than there are BDSM topics, and I don't know *anyone* who is into Formula One racing...... Dlloyd 11:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)