User talk:MistressTaboo

Penis banding

In your note on my talk page you made an awful lot of assumptions about me and what I believe. I was very honest in my comment on the deletion page, and I believe that you completely misrepresented it in your paraphrase. What I said was that the article does not come up to the standard in terms of Wikipedia policy, namely, that it was original research (the policy in a nutshell is "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.", full article at WP:OR) and that it fell far short of the verifiability standard (policy in a nutshell: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." note especially the reputable sources bit. This is not to say that no BDSM sources are reputable (you will note, for instance, the references in the article BDSM. I have no doubt that people practice this, and I actually don't particularly care how people act out their sexuality as long as it's consensual (and everyone has the power to give consent or withhold it). That's actually not's what's at issue in terms of this article, but rather its suitability for an encyclopedia, which is based on things which are verifiable. That very "hint of respecability" is the reason this article can't be on Wikipedia.

Now, for those other sources you gave, Answers is a mirror of Wikipedia, and the other is another wiki, with no editorial oversight whatsoever, and no sources itself. It's not what I would call a reputable source.

To sum up: I don't care about the subject, I care about the sources, which weren't even close to being acceptable. Mak (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing print sources in the Deletion Review. That's exactly the kind of thing we need. Since you mentioned reviewing them recently, would you mind providing page numbers (or at the very least chapter references)? Digging through Freud, especially, can be heavy going. If you've already found the relevant passages, making it easier for others to find them will definitely support the case for this article. Thanks again! FreplySpang 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja McCaskie

Hi. First of all, please do not delete other people's messages from my talk page. Regarding your specific question, pages are only supposed to be protected when there are active problems with the article. Before it was brought to my attention, no human had edited the page since July and all of the slanderous material had been removed. Since it was unprotected (in December), no one has since edited it, be it with slanderous material or otherwise. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - exceptions to this rule have to be made sparsely and for good reason. If we semi-protect one person for fear that they might be slandered, we'd have to semi-protect everyone, and that would defeat the purpose of this being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". If slanderous material is added it will be removed permanently, as it was last time. Any page has the potential to this to happen to them, it's obviously a downside to Wikipedia, but we can't lock all pages because of this potential or it destroys the nature of the project. Cheers, CP 02:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The place to go for page protection is here, where you can make a case for having a page semi or fully protected. For the reasons above, I have no desire to protect the page myself, but I also have no reason to oppose the request. So if you make it there and they accept it, that's great. But I'll warn you that, for the above reasons and the policy on protection, the request will probably be denied. But there's no harm in trying and, certainly, people with more experience in page protection may be able to explain what I'm trying to get at better than I can, or offer a completely different perspective. Cheers, CP 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]