Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:42, 26 November 2006

archive for 2004-05

User_talk:66.229.167.162

Did I get this right? Looked thru the Format and Boilerplate pages and couldn't find a good shortcut to link "(diff)" in page history, tho I've seen it done on pages I cannot otherwise remember. Would also like to know if just generally I'm doing more good that harm with this. I do realise the user of that IP address will probably never read that page.edgarde 12:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Edgarde, you did the right thing, and your link to the diff is good. You are definitively doing more good that harm, as this is the correct way to warn vandals. Most vandal fighters do not link to the exact diff; you can specify only the page that was vandalised (the vandal will probably remember what he did...). There are templates to do exactly this, in this example: {{subst:test2-n|Falsetto}}. Some editors simply add a warning without even specifying which page was vandalised. The important points are that the vandal knows that his vandalism has been discovered, and that vandal fighters can know if he has been warned several already, so that he can be blocked if necessary. Is that clear enough ? If no, please don't hesitate to ask me for more information on my talk page. Otherwise, is there anything else I can help ? Schutz 13:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That answers my questions. Thank you much.edgarde 13:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You semiprotection request

Your request for semiprotection for phone sex was declined, because there is not enough activity in that page to require semiprotection (which, by our Semiprotection Policy is a last resort). I've put that page on my watchlist, though, and I suggest that you do too. Thanks! Borisblue 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Phone sex recat

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, because I had actually made a little mistake. There are two "sex moves" type categories: Category:Sexual acts (or established positions, etc.) and Category:Sex moves (the raunchier category that has some sexual urban legends). Anyway, I was reading the article in German and Sexual acts is the category that's used there. What I meant to add was Category:Sexual acts. Phone sex is an act, and it's sexual, wouldn't you agree? Category:Human sexuality seems rather general, and it's such a big category; that's why I recategorized. - GilliamJF 06:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Even Category:Sexual_acts is basicly ways humans sex "in the flesh", so to speak. Pornography, for instance, is not included (but it is under Category:Human sexuality). I think both Category:Sexual acts and Category:Sex moves are mistakes here. – edgarde 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to revert my addition, no big deal. Thanks. 06:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea: how about replacing Category:Human sexuality with Category:Erotica. GilliamJF 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Preemptive disambiguations

Hi, I'm sorry if I didn't really explain properly on the page why I've done this. The reason I did this was that several bands (such as Vib Gyor) release demo EP's under these names before they actually release an album under a real name and once the bands become successful people may want to create a page with these names to create a full history of the bands discography, I haven't got around to it yet but I do intent to create pages for the Vib Gyor EPs and will add links to these pages in due course when I have got round to creating the pages. Unfortunately also due to the way in which wiki works the pages can't be moved back straight off without the intervention of an administrator as the pages simply labeled EP without the bands name in brackets after must first be deleted before the page and its history, and talk page and history are moved back, also I have re-directed all of the links on other pages to the new pages so these will have to be altered back if the page is moved back. I hate edit wars myself and don't want to get involved in one. If you feel that the work I have done really does need reverting then please contact an administrator and if they feel the revert needs to take place then I will fully accept their decision. --Chappy84 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

like I said "...If you feel that the work I have done really does need reverting then please contact an administrator and if they feel the revert needs to take place then I will fully accept their decision." --Chappy84 08:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of sex tourism

Edgarde, This is Daniel who you've been corrisponding with regarding the Sex tourism page. In case you haven't noticed by now, I'm new at Misplaced Pages. :-) I just read through the guidelines and the processes of despute resolution. Thank you for making that RfC link for us, and introducing it on the talk page of Sex tourism.

I made a change to the end of the Sex tourism definition, and I wanted to know if this is acceptable to you?
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. For the same reasons stated repeatedly by me and by User:RandomP, the points of which you have managed to repeatedly miss. I find it very hard to believe you are being sincere.

Please revert your definition to the former one. Please remove your spam link to Sly Sex Guide. It has been explained to you with clarity what you are doing wrong; your latest set of changes does not address any of these problems. — edgarde 06:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is reverted on User_talk:KyndFellow

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for dedication and commitment to ensuring that article content is encyclopedic. Awarded by Addhoc

Sex tourism

Edgarde, do you still want to do attribution? If so, I was thinking it would be helpful to the reviewing committee if we could specify specific content (e.g. phrases and links) that we respectively want or do not want in the article in a final section of the discussion page before we hand it over to them. I'll need some help filing the application and making preparations, please, as I have never done attribution before.

Congratulations on your award, by the way.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Me

I will refraim from editing the sex toursim page till you feel clear about my identity. The timing of your inquiry is a bit ironic, since your reply to the proposed split of sex tourism and child sex tourism pretty much had me convinced. Devalover 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Edgarde, please confirm that you have been notified that I have filed arbitration on the Requests for arbitration page, and fill in your statement.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 03:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)