Here's a really well-written article. Note the encyclopedic tone, as it commands the reader step-by-step through the process.



We should do this to Jimbo, and when he protests in that wishy-washy way ("Erm, friend, I trust that you are acting in good faith, but might I ask that you ignore all rules and unbind me?"), we would simply say, "But, I'm just doing as the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia tells me to do. It's right here, see?"

Greg

And they say we can't recognize quality encyclopedic writing when we see it! Pshaw!

However, just from personal experience, I would strongly recommend that readers avoid trying this on a grizzly bear.

It needs a picture, though. This is why they shouldn't have banned Taxwoman.

The article will probably get deleted because it's too much of a how to guide and not a vague POV-pushing document like most of their articles.

I see that this is one of Taxwoman's bondage articles. It is flagged as "unreferenced" although there is a perfectly good reference. The tag was added by UncleG

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=66686007

as part of his campaign against Taxwoman

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=112409244

and Poetlister

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=...ev&oldid=501220

If Wikipedia ignores my proof that Ryulong and Danny had a real life association and when one moved somewhere, the other did likewise than they should unban Poetlister, Taxwoman, and all those other names... ummm... I think one may have been Cardiff

Not Cardiff, Newport. And nobody ever suggested that any of us moved to be nearer any of the others.

One of the more hilarious things was that Newport used to say on her user page that she was from Newport (i.e. that she was born there). Jayjg said that she was obviously a fake because she was in Newport yet using IPs from London. Firstly, there's a world of difference between being from somewhere and in somewhere! Secondly, if you're using British Telecom broadband there's no earthly way of telling where in Britain you are; their IPs just cannot be geolocated reliably. Anyone who doesn't know that shouldn't be allowed to checkuser British editors.

And as for Uncle G's tirade against me on Wikiquote, it's pretty daft. He says "[[w:User:David Gerard]] did not unblock [[w:User:Poetlister]], as can be seen from the block log." True, only one person can do an unblock; it cannot be done jointly by two people. The point was that Charles Matthews and David Gerard jointly agreed to unblock me; who pressed the button is irrelevant.

"Rachel - Bible and Jewish subjects"; if you look at RachelBrown's contributions, she ranged much more widely, including articles on the World's highest mountains, the longest roads in London (now deleted) and Elizabeth Symons. Obviously, he never looked.

"There's a London fetish wiki where only the "Taxwoman", and one other, role shows up, for example. Ironically, in that role this person has written on the subject of role playing." This means Wikipedia, where only Taxwoman has ever edited, none of the other alleged sockpuppets, and she didn't write that article, only ever made minor corrections.

"the role account with administrator privileges at Wikipedia successfully parried an earlier request for CheckUser at [[w:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Newport]] (resulting in the blocking of an editor who, ironically, turned out to have been ''right'')" It wasn't Runcorn who parried that request; it was Tyrenius. And the request for checkuser was made by a sockpuppet of Antidote in revenge for Runcorn blocking him.

Another thread derailed.

Sometimes when I see something that's so badly written on WP, I've come to some possibilities:

--The article was originally in another language and has been poorly translated into English.
--The editor is a poor writer.
--Sometimes, its just complete plagiarism taken word-for-word from another poorly written source.

It is sad that you are still banned, Greg. I would have loved to have seen one of your articles go before the Feature Article Cabal. No matter how greatly written by most people's standards, you would never satisfy Tony1 and SandyGeorgia. I'm not meaning to be sadistic, of course.

I... I hope I'm on topic. It's hard to tell sometimes on this forum. I've forgotten the original starter post, but I think I'm back on what Greg was originally talking about.

Update: I see some vandal has had his way with the article! Oh, noes, Jimbo!

Reverted after exactly two hours.

Yeah I often see articles that aren't popular subjects and the article looks plagarized out of some other paper. I can tell because most of the sentences are passive voice, the wording is writen for poor clearly, and most of the words are gibberish uncommon words that pseudo-intellectual dictionary/theasaurus-rapers will use to make their academic paper sound more impressive.

When the editors are poor writers, often they'll want to stay there and control the article for all time to keep the writing poor.

In case nobody has noticed (and of course Uncle G didn't notice), Savage's original article is linked so you can see for yourselves if it's plagiarised.

Oh, and how does the prose compare with James Blake?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13081

Yeah, but the link says "with photos" and no way I'm clicking on it to check for plagiarism! I'm still getting over the shock of seeing ED images.

Can't sleep... lulz will eat me!

Ah, maybe that's why Uncle G said there was no reference; he didn't want to check it. Still, one for WP:ISNOT - WP is not ED.

I'll tell you what, the main thing I've learned from all these bondage and hogtie articles and photos is that two websites are likely making out like bandits from all of the related outbound hyperlink traffic:

BedroomBondage.com with 9 external links, and
AussieRopeWorks.com with 12 external links.

I'm having a little bit of trouble, in fact, discerning why the links to these sites are apparently not spam, but a basic article stub about the Arch Coal company is (to Jimbo) a "travesty of NPOV" and a "PR puff piece". I guess if the content gives you a woody, it's okay for Wikipedia.

Greg

P.S. Annnnnd, we're completely back on thread now!

If and only if the erection involves a properly circumcized penis. Otherwise, Jayjg and his Snippies will get you...

Al

I detect a certain amount of axe-grinding! Most of these links are acknowledgements of the source of photos. If these photos are useless, they should be deleted, otherwise copyright requires that the source be given.

I don't want to go too off-topic here (cough), but I've just read on WP that in 1980, 61.8% of males in the U.S. were circumcised .

What?

Now that's something I didn't know. Thanks WP. To compare, in the U.K. it was 6.5% in the 1980s.

Anyway, please return to the topic at er... hand. Hogties. Don't mind me.

That would be The Savaged Fold.

Damn right, Bead.
.... nope, no little face can accurately depict my own tortured expression having contemplated the above.

I think Greg was saying due to their nature those sites are likely to be drawing a not inconsiderable number of clickthrus and if they have ads they are likely to be drawing notable revenue from it so why is Jimbo not clamping down on links like that when he seems to come down so hard on certain other sites?

I'm not always impressed by references. WP is supposed to have links to reliable sources (WP:RS), not just to someone's personal website. I mean, that can be fine if that personal website gets its information from a reliable source or the author is an authority of the... uuummm... "subject." As for the former, wouldn't it be easier just to link straight to the reliable source (if it exists)?

WP makes a case that all articles are of equal value. I can believe that, but you have to be consistent. An article about Arch Coal would surely have the same right to be on WP as "Hogtying" as long as reliable sources and notability are established. Given the quality of that "Hogtying" article, it is sad that better written articles are being deleted.

Rather ironic that the Arch Coal article is deleted for "fluff" yet Jimbo makes an article about an obscure meat market and it stays.

Right, circumcision is surprisingly common in the US, thought on the decline. Unfortunately, the rear guard owns the articles and doesn't put up with any well-cited, relevant information suggesting that mutilating penises is not medically necessary and may even be harmful.

While Queen Foreskin (aka Jakew) sees the issue in terms of his personal taste, many of the other Snippies seem to politicize it. In specific, they see any anti-circumcision talk as being anti-semitic, due to Judaism's circumcision requirement. Therefore, there is a strong overlap between Team Foreskin (aka The Snippies) and Team Israel (mostly notably Jayjg).

It's really very strange and not a place I expected to find controversy, yet it's a land mine that's resulted in many people being bullied and RfCed off WP, including myself.

Al

It looks like Islam has the same requirement so on that at least they agree...

Sure, but Team Islam doesn't own Circumcision. If there's anything I've learned about WP cabals is that common enemies make for strange bedfellows. Jayjg is, if I understand correctly, an orthodox Jew, which is a group that can only be described as conservative and homophobic. Jakew's a gay man with a fetish for dicks without turtlenecks. I can only conclude that they have little in common other than their support for circumcision, yet they manage to ignore their vast areas of disagreement in order to crush their foes.

Al

Team Islam is about as much of a sub-cabal as Team LaRouchies. Otherwise your observation is generally correct.

And I'll keep grinding and grinding, kind of like Joseph100.

Poetlister, I see your point, but my point(s) are these:

1. Is a hyperlink to the contributor's commercial website necessary, when so many other picture uploaders merely give their name, or even simply their Wikipedia User name, as the "source"?
2. Was the uploader thinking foremost about the goodwill of the encyclopedia project when they included the link to their commercial website, or was there perhaps a conflict of interest, namely their own personal benefit clouding their decision to post the hyperlink?

Anyway, according to Durova's recent search engine blog post, this is pretty much what she recommends self-interested marketers do -- post pictures of their brand of wine, or their model of car, or their brand of computer monitor. And hope that it generates a marketing tidal-wave of customers.

Exactly how Jimbo said he DIDN'T want his encyclopedia exploited.

It makes no sense.

It may look very much like I'm just grinding my axe, but believe me (and others who seem to catch my drift), I'm unearthing much deeper hypocrisies with each of my little personal digs at Wikipedia.

Greg

Meh. These bondage articles are fairly tame compared to some of the sexually oriented stuff on Wikipedia. If you are feeling adventurous and have a strong stomach, you can check this out. There are a number of articles of this nature.

Remember--I warned you.

I saw that article on the Administrators Noticeboard a few months back. It was used as an example of Inclusionism on WP at its worst.

The community clearly wants it.

Talk:Cleveland steamer
Or is it one of those articles that will have endless AfDs until it goes?

That sex act was mentioned all through I think it was "not another teen movie".

It's generally a hot act, but you can't lick your partner's chest afterwards for a long time until they really clean off so it's pretty much got a big downside.

The article overemphasizes the health risks, which are overratted. Just on the chest it doesn't get bladder infections or intestinal parasites like anal sex or analingus. Though, the cleveland steamer does make a huge mess and you have to do it in the bathtub and then it doesn't flow down the drain nicely.

LSS: Please can we not have detailed descriptions of your home life.

Anyone who causes this picture to be lost from the world's greatest encyclopedia is Not My Friend. I feel like nominating it for FPC.

Yeah, somebody save a copy of that, and get Cato to Photoshop Jimbo and SlimVirgin's faces on it. Then make another copy with the genders switched. I'd love to see Slim holding up Jimbo, hogtied.

Whew -- I nabbed it.

Greg

The minor flaw to this plan is the SV is the mysterious Woman Without A Face (ww/of for short).

Al

Nah, just use the old standby:

Who's that?

Al

Who it really is I have no idea, but that's the stand in picture used for SlimVirgin.

I remember the discussion where Daniel explained how he came across that picture. I don't know if everyone here agreed who it was, but there was reasonable evidence it was SlimVirgin/Linda Mack/Sarah Ewert/Name Redacted.

Sorry, thekohser for going off-topic again. Seems to be our Curse of the Billy Goat where we are doomed never to stay on topic. Why'd you ban the goat, Somey?

Dammit, if banning goats was good enough for Josef Stalin, it's good enough for me!

Also, I think it would be funnier to just have it look like this:

Someone who knows a lot about bondage (I don't) needs to explain it to him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...dit§ion=new