Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Articles _ Carly Foulkes

Posted by: Ottava

If you didn't know, Carly Foulkes is the girl from the T-Mobile commercials. She is kinda Anne Hathawayish. As such, she obviously intrigued many of the teen boys that edit Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Foulkes has a wonderful section for her measurements. Why? Because that is clearly encyclopedic. I'm sure if they could find some nude images they would be up too.

Posted by: ~DC

It's not like that information is hard to find. How dare people mention a model's stats.

Posted by: Jay

Dear old Ottava: he never changes! Do you know what "perverted" means, Ottava? If a young male has a healthy heterosexual interest in an attractive female, that is not a perversion even by your puritanical standards.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(~DC @ Fri 21st September 2012, 12:24am) *

It's not like that information is hard to find. How dare people mention a model's stats.


Since when did Britannica use such things? A model's "stats" aren't encyclopedic. No wonder Wikipedia has a problem getting female editors - it is idiots like you who took over and turn it into a 13 year old boy's wet dream.




Jay - there is a serious problem with you. It isn't "healthy" to post up people's information and treat them like pieces of meat. And Jay, thank you for revealing that you are a sock puppet.

Posted by: ~DC

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 21st September 2012, 6:25pm) *

QUOTE(~DC @ Fri 21st September 2012, 12:24am) *

It's not like that information is hard to find. How dare people mention a model's stats.


Since when did Britannica use such things? A model's "stats" aren't encyclopedic. No wonder Wikipedia has a problem getting female editors - it is idiots like you who took over and turn it into a 13 year old boy's wet dream.




Jay - there is a serious problem with you. It isn't "healthy" to post up people's information and treat them like pieces of meat. And Jay, thank you for revealing that you are a sock puppet.


Yes, because her measurements are what perverts want. There's not even a picture on the article for Christs sake.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(~DC @ Sat 22nd September 2012, 12:12am) *

Yes, because her measurements are what perverts want. There's not even a picture on the article for Christs sake.


Yes, the measurements are what perverts want. They don't want to know the real her. They want to know the private her in a way that makes them have control over her. It is called voyeurism.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 22nd September 2012, 3:58pm) *

Yes, the measurements are what perverts want. They don't want to know the real her. They want to know the private her in a way that makes them have control over her. It is called voyeurism.

Again no doubt it is a problem of language. I do not see how such people are perverts. Nor do I see why voyeurs would want her measurements rather than a picture of her. Anyone could estimate her measurements from good pictures. Would not voyeurs want pictures of her in scanty clothing? These are easy enough to find. And you may wonder why there are so many of such pictures on the web, clearly pictures she deliberately posed for, not ones taken by paparazzi with long lenses. Can it be that she wants people to look at her?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 23rd September 2012, 6:47am) *


Again no doubt it is a problem of language. I do not see how such people are perverts. Nor do I see why voyeurs would want her measurements rather than a picture of her.



Any intimate detail about a body provides the voyeurs with pleasure. It is about having power over someone via knowing their secrets.

If you don't see how they are perverts, then that is a personal problem. However, it is more obvious that you are a long standing troll. So stop.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 23rd September 2012, 2:03pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 23rd September 2012, 6:47am) *


Again no doubt it is a problem of language. I do not see how such people are perverts. Nor do I see why voyeurs would want her measurements rather than a picture of her.

Any intimate detail about a body provides the voyeurs with pleasure. It is about having power over someone via knowing their secrets.

If you don't see how they are perverts, then that is a personal problem. However, it is more obvious that you are a long standing troll. So stop.

But someone's measurements are in no way an intimate detail. Anyone can look at me and estimate my measurements. This gives nobody any power over me. You might as well say that my hair colour is an intimate detail. Given that I have demolished your basic assumption, I can safely say that your conclusion from that assumption is unproven.


Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 24th September 2012, 4:19pm) *

But someone's measurements are in no way an intimate detail. Anyone can look at me and estimate my measurements.


Are you an idiot? It really seems like you are. Posting up someone's breast size is an intimate detail. Stop trolling.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 25th September 2012, 2:27am) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 24th September 2012, 4:19pm) *

But someone's measurements are in no way an intimate detail. Anyone can look at me and estimate my measurements.


Are you an idiot? It really seems like you are. Posting up someone's breast size is an intimate detail. Stop trolling.

It seems indeed that you are the idiot. Or is it that you are so unused to looking at women that you cannot see how large someone's breast is? It is harder to tell my shoe size than my breast size. Do you think that my shoe size is an intimate detail?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 25th September 2012, 8:06am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 25th September 2012, 2:27am) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 24th September 2012, 4:19pm) *

But someone's measurements are in no way an intimate detail. Anyone can look at me and estimate my measurements.


Are you an idiot? It really seems like you are. Posting up someone's breast size is an intimate detail. Stop trolling.

It seems indeed that you are the idiot. Or is it that you are so unused to looking at women that you cannot see how large someone's breast is? It is harder to tell my shoe size than my breast size. Do you think that my shoe size is an intimate detail?


Really? You don't think there is a difference between a guess and knowledge? I guess to you everyone should walk around naked because you can kinda see stuff through clothing? You are a bad troll.

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 25th September 2012, 1:06pm) *

It seems indeed that you are the idiot. Or is it that you are so unused to looking at women that you cannot see how large someone's breast is? It is harder to tell my shoe size than my breast size. Do you think that my shoe size is an intimate detail?

Fusion: you're talking to Ottava here. If you showed him a picture of a woman, he wouldn't know where the breasts were.

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 25th September 2012, 10:31pm) *

Really? You don't think there is a difference between a guess and knowledge?

Ottava: you need a course in basic philosophy. There is a continuum between a wild guess, an informed guess based on good information and knowledge based on better information. Indeed, in this world there is very often no perfectly certain knowledge, only something you are 99% sure of. If I look at a lady and I am 99% sure that she is say a 36B, is that not knowledge? If I am allowed to measure her with a tape measure, I still cannot be 100% sure; maybe I am now 99.9% sure. Do you really see such a huge gulf betweem 99% and 99.9%?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Detective @ Wed 26th September 2012, 4:13pm) *

Removed stupidity


Detective,

If a woman has clothes on, she has clothes on.

If a woman is naked, she is naked. There is not a "continuum." You don't see her naked because you have an imagination at work. Nor does that give you the right to pry further and reveal intimate details. You have no philosophical basis. You have no logical basis. You have no ethical basis.

Idiots like you are the reason why Wikipedia fails when it comes to BLP.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 26th September 2012, 9:39pm) *

If a woman has clothes on, she has clothes on.

If a woman is naked, she is naked.

This is all surely irrelevant. The question is not whether she is naked but what her breast size is. Let us try an analogy.

a. I look at the fence around my friend's garden and estimate that it is 100 feet long.
b. I pace it out and now estimate that it is 99 feet long.
c. I get a yardstick and confirm this.
d. I now get a steel tape measure, enabling me to measure it much better, and find that it is 99 feet and 6 inches.
e. A professional surveyor with better equipment finds that it is 99 feet and 4 inches.

Which of these is a guess and which is fact? Remember that even the surveyor may be slightly out.

And which of the things below is an intimate secret and which is not?

a. Breast measurement, obvious by looking at someone.
b. Panties size, obvious by looking at someone.
c. Height, can be guessed by looking at someone but not as accurately as breast measurement.
d. Weight, again can be guessed by looking at someone.
e. Shoe size, much harder to guess accurately.
f. Date of birth, surely a more sensitive subject than many others for some people, and yet routinely put in articles about people without, apparently, annoying Ottava.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Thu 27th September 2012, 7:31am) *

More trolling



You can't justify putting up someone's breast size in an encyclopedia unless there is really good justification (i.e. someone with record breaking breasts and is known for that). It is that simple. It doesn't matter what you think or how you try to rationalize it, it ends up with you just trolling.

You have no respect for others in that you are trolling or you honestly believe what you are trolling about.


And if you think someone's breast size is "obvious" by looking at them, why put it up? Regardless, you can't just "tell" something like that. You probably have never met a woman before if you honestly believe that crap.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 27th September 2012, 5:48pm) *

You can't justify putting up someone's breast size in an encyclopedia unless there is really good justification

Is that not a truism? You cannot justify it unless you can justify it?

And of course you can say as much about many things. I am much more worried about people's exact date of birth or mother's maiden name which may help fraudsters. Should we rather not concentrate on that rather than silly trivia?
QUOTE
And if you think someone's breast size is "obvious" by looking at them, why put it up?

Because they cannot find a CC-BY photo.
QUOTE
You probably have never met a woman before if you honestly believe that crap.

Have you the slightest idea how ridiculous you make yourself? Maybe we should have a poll: "I believe that I can tell the difference between a woman with large breasts and one with small breasts by looking at them."


Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Fri 28th September 2012, 7:29am) *


And of course you can say as much about many things. I am much more worried about people's exact date of birth or mother's maiden name which may help fraudsters. Should we rather not concentrate on that rather than silly trivia?


Birth dates and locations are encyclopedic. Breast sizes are not.

QUOTE
Maybe we should have a poll: "I believe that I can tell the difference between a woman with large breasts and one with small breasts by looking at them."


Really? So saying "large" vs "small" is the equivalent of exact measurements? You are not even a decent troll. And if you can "tell" by looking at them, then you are giving reason not to even bother mentioning them!

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 26th September 2012, 9:39pm) *

Detective,

If a woman has clothes on, she has clothes on.

If a woman is naked, she is naked. There is not a "continuum."

Let's clarify this. So a woman is only naked if she has no clothes on? What if she is wearing nothing but ankle socks? She is not naked, so a photo of her is not a phot of a naked woman. What if she is wearing no more than a thong, or a see-through dress with noting underneath?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Detective @ Fri 28th September 2012, 3:12pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 26th September 2012, 9:39pm) *

Detective,

If a woman has clothes on, she has clothes on.

If a woman is naked, she is naked. There is not a "continuum."

Let's clarify this. So a woman is only naked if she has no clothes on? What if she is wearing nothing but ankle socks? She is not naked, so a photo of her is not a phot of a naked woman. What if she is wearing no more than a thong, or a see-through dress with noting underneath?


Done trolling?


Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 28th September 2012, 5:19pm) *

Birth dates and locations are encyclopedic. Breast sizes are not.

Aha, you have changed your argument completely. You were saying that putting in a lady's breast size is a sign of perversion, which clearly is not so. Now you merely say that it is not encyclopedic. That may be so, although since Wikipedia is claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge surely everything is fair material. However, far more than that is not encyclopedic, yet you do not complain about for example the detailed description of every Pokemon.


Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 29th September 2012, 7:46am) *

More lies and trolling.



It has been obvious that it is not encyclopedic because it is personal information of an intimate nature. Breast size is an intimate detail. No matter how much you try to lie, you cannot "just tell" and it always is private.

And I mention encyclopedic in my very first post, so it is obvious that you are a really, really bad liar and troll.

Posted by: The Joy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carly_Foulkes&oldid=505012148#Shoe_size.3F

QUOTE

Lots of models have shoe size, dress size, breast size, waist size and hip size in their infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 1:31 pm, 16 August 2011, Tuesday (1 year, 1 month, 15 days ago) (UTC−4)

breast size?Greg Heffley 3:23 pm, 6 June 2012, Wednesday (3 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−4)

It just takes a little research.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 3:29 pm, 6 June 2012, Wednesday (3 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−4)

Actually the existing ref had the info. Nobody Ent 5:31 pm, 6 June 2012, Wednesday (3 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−4)


Good gravy. sick.gif

Posted by: Fusion

Welcome to this thread, The Joy.

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 29th September 2012, 5:50pm) *

And I mention encyclopedic in my very first post

Ah yes, so you did.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 14th September 2012, 4:54am) *


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Foulkes has a wonderful section for her measurements. Why? Because that is clearly encyclopedic.


Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 30th September 2012, 6:26am) *


Ah yes, so you did.



Which verifies that you are here only to troll. Go to the other site. They love trolling there.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 30th September 2012, 11:44pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 30th September 2012, 6:26am) *


Ah yes, so you did.



Which verifies that you are here only to troll. Go to the other site. They love trolling there.


Wikipedia does appear to love trolling.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 1st October 2012, 4:44am) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 30th September 2012, 6:26am) *

Ah yes, so you did.

Which verifies that you are here only to troll. Go to the other site. They love trolling there.

Why is it that you never are satisfied? When I correct your errors you are grumpy. When I agree with you then you are even grumpier!


QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 1st October 2012, 5:23am) *

Wikipedia does appear to love trolling.

That is surely true but I steer clear of such there. I have a job to do and I do it.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 1st October 2012, 9:32am) *


Why is it that you never are satisfied? When I correct your errors you are grumpy. When I agree with you then you are even grumpier!



Trolling is about wasting time. It is also about disrupting from a topic. You make statements that give evidence that you never bothered to read the topic. That is not good.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 1st October 2012, 5:44pm) *

Trolling is about wasting time.

This whole thread is surely you are attempting to waste people's time. You say, and I quote, "Her biography has a wonderful section for her measurements. Why? Because that is clearly encyclopedic." So why, if the section is wonderful and clearly encyclopedic, do you make everyone waste time by the way you criticise it?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 2nd October 2012, 10:23am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 1st October 2012, 5:44pm) *

Trolling is about wasting time.

This whole thread is surely you are attempting to waste people's time. You say, and I quote, "Her biography has a wonderful section for her measurements. Why? Because that is clearly encyclopedic." So why, if the section is wonderful and clearly encyclopedic, do you make everyone waste time by the way you criticise it?



Are you that dense that you missed obvious sarcasm?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 2nd October 2012, 10:23am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 1st October 2012, 5:44pm) *

Trolling is about wasting time.

This whole thread is surely you are attempting to waste people's time. You say, and I quote, "Her biography has a wonderful section for her measurements. Why? Because that is clearly encyclopedic." So why, if the section is wonderful and clearly encyclopedic, do you make everyone waste time by the way you criticise it?



http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Science-of-Sarcasm-Yeah-Right.html: "An inability to understand sarcasm may be an early warning sign of brain disease."

Posted by: Jay

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 21st September 2012, 6:25pm) *

QUOTE(~DC @ Fri 21st September 2012, 12:24am) *
<snip>

Jay - there is a serious problem with you.<snip>



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 25th November 2012, 10:37pm) *

"An inability to understand sarcasm may be an early warning sign of brain disease."

And what does an inability to distinguish between ~DC and me signify? We're several thousand miles apart, I believe.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Jay @ Mon 26th November 2012, 7:41am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 21st September 2012, 6:25pm) *

QUOTE(~DC @ Fri 21st September 2012, 12:24am) *
<snip>

Jay - there is a serious problem with you.<snip>



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 25th November 2012, 10:37pm) *

"An inability to understand sarcasm may be an early warning sign of brain disease."

And what does an inability to distinguish between ~DC and me signify? We're several thousand miles apart, I believe.



Really? Produce your address, real name, and Wikipedia user name. Otherwise, your clear sock name with no history and yet knowledge about things that require history is telling.

Posted by: Jay

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 26th November 2012, 4:08pm) *

Really? Produce your address, real name, and Wikipedia user name. Otherwise, your clear sock name with no history and yet knowledge about things that require history is telling.

Suppose I gave all that and, what I know about ~DC. What's the point. You'd just accuse me of lying.

How is my name a sock name? It is the name by which I am known in real life. Do people call you Ottava in real life? And I have plenty of history that you can verify; I have been on this site, off and on, for over three years. I refuse to tell you my WP name, for obvious reasons, just as The Joy does.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Jay @ Tue 27th November 2012, 7:24am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 26th November 2012, 4:08pm) *

Really? Produce your address, real name, and Wikipedia user name. Otherwise, your clear sock name with no history and yet knowledge about things that require history is telling.

Suppose I gave all that and, what I know about ~DC. What's the point. You'd just accuse me of lying.

How is my name a sock name? It is the name by which I am known in real life. Do people call you Ottava in real life? And I have plenty of history that you can verify; I have been on this site, off and on, for over three years. I refuse to tell you my WP name, for obvious reasons, just as The Joy does.



So, instead of providing your Wikipedia account, you are trying to hide while saying that you are not a sock. Wow, you are an incredibly bad liar.

Posted by: Retrospect

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:04pm) *

So, instead of providing your Wikipedia account, you are trying to hide while saying that you are not a sock. Wow, you are an incredibly bad liar.

Hey, why don't you call The Joy a sock, since he won't tell you his account? Because you're frightened of him? Or is it because he's a fellow Yank and I'm in Britain?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:04pm) *

So, instead of providing your Wikipedia account, you are trying to hide while saying that you are not a sock. Wow, you are an incredibly bad liar.

Hey, why don't you call The Joy a sock, since he won't tell you his account? Because you're frightened of him? Or is it because he's a fellow Yank and I'm in Britain?



Who says I and others don't know The Joy's account? o.O

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:55pm) *

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:04pm) *

So, instead of providing your Wikipedia account, you are trying to hide while saying that you are not a sock. Wow, you are an incredibly bad liar.

Hey, why don't you call The Joy a sock, since he won't tell you his account? Because you're frightened of him? Or is it because he's a fellow Yank and I'm in Britain?



Who says I and others don't know The Joy's account? o.O


Image

You know my pseudonym's pseudonym! ohmy.gif fear.gif

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 28th November 2012, 4:11am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:55pm) *

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 27th November 2012, 3:04pm) *

So, instead of providing your Wikipedia account, you are trying to hide while saying that you are not a sock. Wow, you are an incredibly bad liar.

Hey, why don't you call The Joy a sock, since he won't tell you his account? Because you're frightened of him? Or is it because he's a fellow Yank and I'm in Britain?



Who says I and others don't know The Joy's account? o.O



You know my pseudonym's pseudonym! ohmy.gif fear.gif


Ha. Well, you did have a few throw away accounts at least. smile.gif