User talk:Alexthornxxx

Welcome!

Hello, Alexthornxxx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Rectal prolapse did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:Rectal prolapse—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Please explain me something: You have fake info in this article. I try to fix it. But I am reverted becouse I am not familiar with wiki. So info stay fake and people see fake info. Does this not metter if info in article is fake? What is more important? Rules of editing or correction of fake info?

Reliable source:

1. 1. Existing since 2007 discusion board of fans of rosebutt/prolapse fetish:

https://www.rosebuttboard.com/index.php?/topic/29538-xthrogal-prolapse-rosebutt-gape-pucker-guide/

#1. Rosebutt - anus is open (often with ass lips around). We see red inside, sometimes just flat, sometimes a bit pushed out. There is no full fall outside. This must be understood. Rosebutt nothing falling full out. While when anus prolapse, all fall out.

#2. Prolapse - big red collon falling outside of anus. We see it falling out. Is not flat or jsut a little bit out like with rosebutt. Is a lot of clon outside of anus lips line.

#3. Rosebud - this is a sexual toy. Small buttplug with sparkling jewelry at boottom. Is "erotic decoration". It has nothing in common with anus condition since is just a toy. A buttplug.

thats direct link to this definitions include this history how this fake info appear in wiki

1. 2. Porn websites where rosebutt/prolapse is used as terminology:

bubdzia.com (starting 2005 and first worldwide commercial website with rosebutt/prolapse), hotkinkyjo.xxx, dirtygardengirl.com, prolapsequeen.com, sindyrose.com, alexextreme.com, hkjfans.com, piercedaspid.com

On oposite in this wiki page is only text from vice magazine based on interview with porn model. Here You have much more pornstars, big communities existing much longer then this scam vice article.

I not know how this all works to fix this on wiki. May be instead of revert me You halp me and fix this?? Alexthornxxx (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not a remotely acceptable reliably source. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I am confused...

How is possible that one journalist who has absolutly nothing in common with porn rosebutt prolapse busines write this https://www.vice.com/en/article/qbvmz3/a-rosebud-by-any-other-name-would-smell-like-shit and it is reliable srouce for wiki.

but

discusion board with 120k ppl dedicated to exacly this particular fetish, or porn websites dedicated to this particular fetish are NOT reliable sources?

Do You not think this is oposite?

Did You not think that people what actually work every day with rosebutt/prolapse fetish and are experts in it should be consider reliable?

I am really asking. How this is possible?? Alexthornxxx (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Because forums are places that anyone can write anything. If you read the policy page on reliable sources you can learn more about what "reliable" means on Wikipedia specifically. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I am unable provide reliable source in understanding of wiki rules so even if my definition is the only correct definition I am unable to fix this article. So info stay fake.

As for wikipedia - so srouce of knowledge - does this not sounds not good? Alexthornxxx (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's just how it works. Wikipedia does not exist to contain all the knowledge in the universe, merely to reflect what reliable sources say. Things which are not readable in reliable sources will generally not be readable on Wikipedia either. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

So basically we know that this info is fake in this article but we must left it that way since rules are rules?

That bad rules :-)

Even if from 2005 I produce rosebutt and prolapse porn and I did over 3000 movies in my life with this feitsh I am not repliable compare to one time article from new magazine...

I give up Alexthornxxx (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

OK AntiDionysius (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

unless You can sugest me how to prove my words? Alexthornxxx (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This porn websites I listed are also not reliable? People who actually do this kind of fetish and use this word "rosebutt" and "prolapse" but never "rosebud" on this websites are not repliable? Alexthornxxx (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your own "expertise" is considered [[WP:OR|original research" so no you can't use that. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: how does it work with experts? For example, there is a professor from a university and next to him is a journalist from a news blog. The professor tells in post how it is (since he has university knowledge) and the journalist writes something oposite on his news blog (what is total bullshit). Now, due to Wikipedia's rules, a journalist is reliable and a professor is not? Correct? Alexthornxxx (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)